Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation that will impact the health and readiness of the Selected Reserve. The Selected Reserves includes over 900,000 dedicated men and women divided between the National Guard and the Reserves. Over the past ten years, this force has become increasingly critical to carrying out our Nation's defense, whether deploying to far-flung regions of the globe or backfilling for other units making those deployments. The country simply cannot meet its commitments without these proud citizen-soldiers. It follows, then, that steps to increase the readiness of the Selected Reserves will have a positive effect on the readiness of the entire force. It was this goal in mind that I introduce the Health Care for Selected Reserve Act. This legislation will ensure that all members of the drilling reserves have adequate health insurance. The legislation acknowledges our reserves' continuing contributions to the defense of the Nation and expresses the need for full medical coverage. The legislation will commission an independent study on the extent of insurance shortfalls and examine the feasibility of extending the TRICARE or FEHBP program to the reserves. Currently, when a member of the Selected Reserve goes on active duty over 60 days, they are provided full coverage under the TRICARE Prime program conducted through the active military's medical treatment facilities. But when reservists are not on active duty, they are left to gain insurance through their civilian employers. Like the rest of society, most gain adequate coverage through their employers like the rest of society, but, mirroring broader shortfalls in the wider population, many go without any health coverage at all. This shortfall has an even more noticeable affect on the country because it affects military readiness. There is also an underlying issue of fairness here. It seems wrong to me that one week someone can be patrolling the skies over Iraq with full coverage and the next week they can have no health coverage at all. That situation gives the impression that the National Guard and the Reserves are the poorly-paid subcontractor to the active duty force. If we really believe in the idea of the Total Force, we cannot let these health coverage shortfalls exist. I want to thank the other sponsors of this bill for helping me craft this bill. Senators DeWine, Daschle, Cochran, Carnahan, Snowe, and Johnson are deeply interested in this issue, and I look forward to working with them to develop a set of concrete steps to meet this problem. I urge the legislation's adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation that will impact the health and readiness of the Selected Reserve. The Selected Reserves includes over 900,000 dedicated men and women divided between the National Guard and the Reserves. Over the past ten years, this force has become increasingly critical to carrying out our Nation's defense, whether deploying to far-flung regions of the globe or backfilling for other units making those deployments. The country simply cannot meet its commitments without these proud citizen-soldiers. It follows, then, that steps to increase the readiness of the Selected Reserves will have a positive effect on the readiness of the entire force. It was this goal in mind that I introduce the Health Care for Selected Reserve Act. This legislation will ensure that all members of the drilling reserves have adequate health insurance. The legislation acknowledges our reserves' continuing contributions to the defense of the Nation and expresses the need for full medical coverage. The legislation will commission an independent study on the extent of insurance shortfalls and examine the feasibility of extending the TRICARE or FEHBP program to the reserves. Currently, when a member of the Selected Reserve goes on active duty over 60 days, they are provided full coverage under the TRICARE Prime program conducted through the active military's medical treatment facilities. But when reservists are not on active duty, they are left to gain insurance through their civilian employers. Like the rest of society, most gain adequate coverage through their employers like the rest of society, but, mirroring broader shortfalls in the wider population, many go without any health coverage at all. This shortfall has an even more noticeable affect on the country because it affects military readiness. There is also an underlying issue of fairness here. It seems wrong to me that one week someone can be patrolling the skies over Iraq with full coverage and the next week they can have no health coverage at all. That situation gives the impression that the National Guard and the Reserves are the poorly-paid subcontractor to the active duty force. If we really believe in the idea of the Total Force, we cannot let these health coverage shortfalls exist. I want to thank the other sponsors of this bill for helping me craft this bill. Senators DeWine, Daschle, Cochran, Carnahan, Snowe, and Johnson are deeply interested in this issue, and I look forward to working with them to develop a set of concrete steps to meet this problem. I urge the legislation's adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a very special Vermonter, and a good friend, Karen Kitzmiller. Karen, at the young age of 53, lost her long battle with breast cancer on May 20 of this year. In East Montpelier the following Saturday, I joined hundreds of family, friends, colleagues, and admirers who gathered together to share their memories of Karen, and to honor her life. For the past 11 years Karen Kitzmiller served as Montpelier's Democratic State representative in the Vermont Legislature. Her legislative achievements were many, but most outstanding was her work on the House Health and Welfare Committee. Karen was a determined advocate and principled leader on behalf of the health and well-being of Vermonters. She fought to prevent tobacco companies from targeting children with advertisements designed to encourage youth smoking. To help patients appeal coverage denials by health maintenance organizations, Karen dedicated her efforts to the establishment of Vermont's health care ombudsman. She devoted considerable energies to the provision of health care coverage for the uninsured. This spring, after almost four years of effort, she witnessed the Governor sign legislation to ensure that uninsured patients who volunteer to participate in cancer treatment clinical trials are provided with health care coverage. Karen was diagnosed with cancer more than four years ago, and yet through it all, she did not give up her work on behalf of Vermonters. She continued to serve in the Legislature, she leant her experience as a cancer survivor in efforts to promote awareness about the importance of support groups, and she helped to establish the annual Breast Cancer Conference in Burlington. These are just a few of the lasting contributions that will serve as a tribute to Karen's life for years to come. Karen leaves behind a loving family--her husband, Warren, and two daughters, Amy and Carrie. Amy is a student at the University of Virginia, studying government and women's studies, and Carrie is a student at the University of Pennsylvania studying at the School of Arts and Sciences. I had the privilege of sponsoring Amy as a Senate Page in 1996 and as an intern in my Montpelier office in the summer of 2000. They are both bright young women. I know their mother was very proud of them both. Although their loss is great, the Kitzmillers can take some small comfort in knowing how special Karen was to so many people. Her strength, her courage, and her compassion served as inspiration to all those who were fortunate enough to come in contact with her. She will be missed by all.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Oregon to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act. In the last two Congresses, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly 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. 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, opposition, 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 kidnaping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It 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 last week, 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. For example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was firebombed recently, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This follows 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. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to work along the Vermont border. As a Federal law enforcement officer, Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our bill. There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge, law enforcement officer or U.S. official. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned with more and more threats of harm to our judges, law enforcement officers and Federal officials. The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives was quoted as saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal judges in the eyes of the public. Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve within it with the respect that is essential to preserving its public standing. We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible to the gusts of the political winds of the moment. We are fortunate to have 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 or U.S. officials, to remind everyone that these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection. I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on protecting our Federal judiciary and other public servants in our Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Oregon to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act. In the last two Congresses, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly 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. 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, opposition, 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 kidnaping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It 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 last week, 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. For example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was firebombed recently, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This follows 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. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to work along the Vermont border. As a Federal law enforcement officer, Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our bill. There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge, law enforcement officer or U.S. official. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned with more and more threats of harm to our judges, law enforcement officers and Federal officials. The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives was quoted as saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal judges in the eyes of the public. Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve within it with the respect that is essential to preserving its public standing. We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible to the gusts of the political winds of the moment. We are fortunate to have 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 or U.S. officials, to remind everyone that these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection. I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on protecting our Federal judiciary and other public servants in our Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution on Macedonia, with my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. Macedonia stands out as the country in the Balkans which, until recently, avoided the bloodshed and destruction that engulfed the rest of the former Yugoslavia throughout much of the past decade. In Macedonia, ethnic Macedonians and Albanians have lived peacefully together. But recently, a small number of Albanian fighters have resorted to violence. Some have demanded a separate Albanian state. Others are interested in nothing more than control over smuggling routes in and out of Macedonia. Still others are from Kosovo, and are using Macedonia as a staging ground to focus international attention on their grievances in Kosovo. But there are others who have taken up arms who represent the aspirations of the larger community of ethnic Albanians in Macedonia, who have been the victims of discrimination in their own country, or what is now Macedonia, for generations. Albanians comprise approximately one third of the population of Macedonia, but they hold only a fraction of government positions. There are no public institutions of higher learning where Albanian language is taught or spoken. Albanians are not recognized in Macedonia's Constitution. The ethnic Albanian's grievances are legitimate, and must be addressed. The ethnic Macedonians also have rights, which must be respected. Recently, the leaders of a coalition government, representing ethnic Macedonian and Albanian political parties, have met to try to find a political settlement of the conflict. Both sides have acknowledged that there is no military solution, and that a civil war would be devastating for the country. But after a week of negotiations they have made little progress, and the talks have reportedly reached an impasse. That is unacceptable. There is no other way to avoid a wider war than through dialogue. The United States has offered support, but not as vigorously as I believe it should. The leaders of the European Union have also invested considerable time and energy in search of peace. NATO is prepared to assist in implementing a peace agreement, as it should, but the parties in Macedonia need to recognize that the United States will not intervene militarily, nor will we finance a war on behalf of either side. To think otherwise would be both unrealistic and pointless. The United States would support a political settlement that upholds the rights of all citizens of Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity, and which preserves the political and geographical integrity of the country. This resolution calls attention to the importance of the situation in Macedonia, for the Balkans region, for Europe, and for the United States. This is a solvable problem, and it would be unforgivable if, what is still a relatively low intensity, localized conflict, erupted into full-scale civil war. The administration needs to give this precarious situation far more attention than it has thus far. We have an ambassador there who is doing his best, but it is not enough. Higher level diplomacy is needed, and it is needed urgently.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, in submitting this resolution, entitled ``Hunger to Harvest: A Decade of Support for sub-Saharan Africa.'' The Resolution speaks for itself, but I want to make a couple of brief points. Sub-Saharan Africa today is a region suffering from immense problems, and none more catastrophic than AIDS. Over 25 million people are infected with the AIDS virus, and almost 4 million more people are infected each year. The disease is destroying whole societies in a region that was already the poorest in the world. Another million people, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and mostly children, die from malaria each year. Many of these deaths could be prevented with mosquito bed nets that cost a few dollars a piece. An estimated 2 million people have died from hunger and disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the civil war there, and hardly anyone noticed. There is similar suffering in southern Sudan. Hunger and poverty are endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, as are violence and corruption. It is beyond tragic that a region with such great potential has been so devastated by corrupt leaders who have robbed their countries' wealth, and fought wars for no other reason than to amass riches and power, wars that have spanned decades and wreaked havoc on their own people. Yet despite this terrible legacy there are signs of hope. Some countries have emerged from chaos and are beginning to recover. Nigeria is an example. Namibia is another. Still others, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are showing tentative but encouraging signs. It is also noteworthy that American companies are increasingly investing in sub-Saharan Africa, investments which today total some $12.8 billion. These are positive changes that deserve our support, but United States assistance to sub-Saharan Africa is a mere $2 per person per year. We cannot solve Africa's problems, but Bread for the World Institute calculates that great progress could be made in reducing hunger and poverty in Africa with relatively modest increases in international assistance. This Resolution seeks to focus attention on the urgent needs in sub- Saharan Africa. But it goes further, by requesting the Administration to develop five and ten year strategies for helping to address those needs, in health, education and agriculture, and for promoting free market economies, trade and investment, democracy and the rule of law. With clear strategies, specific goals, the resources to implement them, and benchmarks for measuring results, we can make a difference. We also request the Administration to report on progress in implementing these strategies. It is my hope that this resolution will lead to a new U.S. approach toward sub-Saharan Africa. As the world's richest, most powerful Nation I believe we can and should do far more to assist the world's poor. But the leaders of the sub-Saharan countries also have a responsibility to support policies that benefit and provide incentives to their people. Those who do, deserve our support. Finally, I want to thank Bread for the World for its help on the Resolution, and for its life-saving work in sub-Saharan Africa and around the world.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is a very small State with special people. For those of us who live there we have the opportunity to get to know many within our State. One who has given his life to the people of his community and parish is Father Philip Branon and I would like my colleagues to have the opportunity to read this recent article about him that was in the Burlington Free Press on April 8, 2001. The article follows: Vt. Priest Celebrates 50 Years on the Job (By Sally Pollak) South Hero--Philip Branon was a teen-ager when the priest at his local church, St. Patrick in Fairfield, called him into the rectory and suggested he consider the priesthood. ``It must be because I was a pious child,'' the Rev. Branon said, laughing at the thought, ``Or maybe my mother told him to. I don't know.'' If it were his mother's idea it was a sound one, the right choice for the sixth of 10 Branon children--a Fairfield farmboy who still associates Sunday Mass with morning chores. Branon, 74, will mark the 50th anniversary of his ordination into the priesthood Wednesday. He has spent more than half that time--30 years--serving the Catholic community of Grand Isle County, celebrating Mass, comforting the dying, baptizing babies. He joins one other Vermont priest, the Rev. George Dupuis of Arlington, who is still active after half a century. If Branon anticipated 50 years of anything, it was nothing more than living. ``I'm just very grateful that I have lived for the 50 years, and that I have good health,'' Branon said. ``I also have the wonderful privilege of being brought up in a good family with a lot of help and warmth from my brothers and sisters.'' Branon celebrated his first Mass on April 15, 1951, reciting the service in Latin in St. Patrick Church, his childhood parish. The Rev. William Tennien, the pastor who suggested Branon's priesthood, shepherded Burlington drivers who couldn't get through the muddy Franklin County roads to the event. over the years Since that first service, Branon has celebrated more than 17,000 Masses, an average of seven a week. He will say once again this morning, at St. Joseph Church in Grand Isle, one of three churches in his parish. The service will be followed by a celebration of his priesthood. Alice Toth, a South Hero teacher, plans to attend. She has been a parishioner at St. Rose in South Hero, Branon's home church, for 33 years. Toth appreciates his ``special gift'' for reaching the elderly and ill. ``He's a very caring pastor,'' she said. ``And he's a true Vermonter in the sense that he's really close to nature in his sermon and his message.'' Branon's first church was St. Paul in Barton. Then Mass was in Latin and his sermons were delivered in French and English. He had no choice: He was informed by the Bishop that he would not be ordained if he didn't learn French. He picked up sufficient French in conversation with other students at St. John's Seminary in Boston, ``I got along well in Barton,'' he said. ``Even though I didn't always know what I was saying.'' Branon became the pastor at the University of Vermont's Newman Center in 1957, and served there for 14 years. He called it ``the best place a priest could be'' when the changes of Vatican II were introduced. At UVM, bringing together his two loves--family and the Church--he asked a wood-worker from the Fairfield hills, Frank Moran, to carve a crucifix from a piece of black cherry that belonged to Branon's father. It remains at the chapel today. Good Vermont stock Thirty years ago, Branon moved to the Champlain Islands, where he lives in South Hero and serves three island churches. He has chosen to stay because he loves where he lives, has firm roots in the community, and is not far from family and his childhood home. ``His contributions to the islands cannot be overestimated,'' said Max Reader, the retired pastor of the Congregational Church in South Hero. ``He's down to earth.'' Reader said, ``He's quite honest and he's very understanding. He's of good old Vermont stock and he's just got all these good qualities that make him a very, very fine priest.'' Branon feels that perhaps his most important contributions are made at funerals. He estimates that he has presided over 15 to 20 during each of the last 30 years. ``I'd rather do funerals than weddings anytime,'' he said Thursday morning after Mass. ``At a funeral, it's all honest. It's really and truly a teachable moment, the best chance for a priest to talk to a number of people who don't go to church.'' He considers the most important part of his job bringing Communion and comfort to the elderly and ill who can't get to church. Thursday after Mass, Branon--a slow walker and deliberate talker--placed a bible and some bread in his Chevy Corsica and prepared for a dozen Communion house calls. ``It comes down to the purpose of our ministry,'' he said. ``The purpose of the priesthood is to help people go to heaven. When you're dealing with sick people and old people, you're pretty apt to be dealing with people who are close to it. ``Over the years, you find out that sick people know they're sick. You try to help people understand it, help them face death.'' The deaths are not only a time for comfort and compassion, but a chance to learn about the families who live on the islands. ``If I had written down two or three lines about every person I buried,'' Branon said, ``I'd have a wonderful history of the islands.'' Farming family The history of the Church and his family are of great importance to Branon. His family has been farming in Fairfield for about 130 years, working a farm that was started by his great-grandmother, Mary O'Neill Branon. She was widowed in the 1860s when her blacksmith husband, Irish immigrant Anthony Branon, was killed by the kick of a horse. Mary Branon took her two children and walked 17 miles from Swanton to Fairfield, driving cattle as she went. Branon and his nine siblings--seven brothers and two sisters--grew up on the nearby farm settled by Mary O'Neill Branon's son, Edward. He fondly recalls the Sunday mornings of his childhood, a satisfying mix of chores, Mass and fox hunting. His mother was devout, but it is his father's definition of sin that has stayed with the priest: ``He said, `I was brought up to figure you can't commit a sin unless you want to,' '' Branon recalled. And it was his father, brother of a priest and a nun, who took the time to fall to his knees and pray before going to the barn to care for a sick horse. These stories of family and faith nourish Branon as he approaches 75, as he makes his rounds to comfort the elderly and ill. He has no plans to retire, no plans to leave South Hero. ``I owe it to God and the people to keep going as long as I'm worth anything,'' he said. In his parish home, alone at night, Branon thinks of his own mortality and finds comfort in these words: ``May the all powerful Lord grant me a happy life and a peaceful death.'' Maybe not the exact words of the night prayers, concedes the priest with 50 years' experience. But close enough.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the innovative and far-reaching legislation before us, the Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. The Senate for several weeks has been considering this reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, which was first enacted in 1965 as part of President Johnson's war on poverty. While the anchor of this law has always been title I--a program to provide support to low- income and disadvantaged students--ESEA has evolved over the past 35 years to also include important professional development, technology and after-school programs. The bill before us today makes significant changes to education policy, reflecting our commitment to make the Federal Government an effective partner in reforming the nation's public schools. We all hope these reforms will be the right ones for our children. While I do have some concerns about the commitment of the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to adequately fund the programs in the BEST Act, I am willing to take them at their word, to leave no child behind. During the Senate's consideration of the BEST Act, a variety of amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle have been considered. I would like to take a moment to highlight just a few of these. First, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the managers of this bill, Senators Kennedy and Gregg, for accepting an amendment offered by Senator Hatch and myself to re-authorize Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States. In 1997, I was 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. This bipartisan amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of Justice grants for each of the next five years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. These grants will bring the total number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000 to serve 6,000,000 young people by January 1, 2007. In my home State of Vermont, this long-term Federal commitment has enabled Vermonters to established six Boys and Girls Clubs, in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. Indeed, Vermont's Boys and Girls Clubs received more than $1 million in Department of Justice grants since 1998. I am hopeful this amendment will ensure future funding for these successful youth programs. Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the BEST Act are the expanded requirements for student assessment, specifically the annual testing of schoolchildren in Grades 3 through 8. The legislation will require states to establish comprehensive assessment systems in order to evaluate the achievement of their schools and students. Accountability in education is important. Parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers should know how their schools are performing. However, it is important that testing be used as a diagnostic tool in an overall assessment system and not become a reform in its own right. Tests should measure school progress based on standards that are part of a high-quality curriculum. My home State of Vermont has a fine tradition of high expectations in education and currently has in place a comprehensive framework for school standards and accountability. I am hopeful that the new role of the Federal Government outlined in the legislation before us will reinforce, not undermine, state and local efforts to improve student performance. For small States--like Vermont--the costs associated with implementing a large-scale assessment system can be prohibitively expensive. During consideration of the BEST Act, the Senate approved two key amendments that will help lessen the burden on the States. First, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to require that the Federal Government provide at least 50 percent of the costs of developing and administering the testing requirements in the underlying bill. If the Federal Government does not provide these funds, the States will not be required to administer the tests. Second, the Senate adopted an amendment to have the General Accounting Office conduct a study to evaluate the true costs to the States for the testing provisions. This report will be completed prior to the implementation of the Best Act's assessment requirements. If the GAO finds the costs to be higher than anticipated, the Senate should return to the issue. We must not require reform from our States-- especially small States without providing the necessary resources to support those reforms. We must not set our schools and students up for failure. In addition to these important testing-related improvements, the Senate also approved an amendment to fully fund the Federal Government's portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This is a crucial issue and one that education officials back in our home States have been pushing for--for the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility. The Senate also agreed to authorize full-funding for the title I program, a strong reflection of our commitment to providing resources to schools that educate low- income and disadvantaged students. While several other amendments were approved that will strengthen the BEST Act, I was pleased that the Senate rejected some proposals that would have weakened our commitment to public school education. In particular, I was pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment that would have directed public dollars to private schools. I have long had concerns about using Federal tax dollars to support private schools through vouchers. Although I support the options private schools provide for some of our Nation's youth, our primary responsibility must be to ensure that our public schools are the best they can possibly be in order to give our children the education they deserve. Rather than send precious public funds to private or religious schools, we must ensure that all public schools in the United States have the resources to provide a high quality education for all of our Nation's children. By approving the legislation before us today, we will be taking the first step toward enacting quality education reform in our Nation's schools. The second step will come later in the year when Congress and President Bush determine the funding level for these Federal programs. In recent days many of my colleagues have spoken about the need for adequate funding for these reform efforts. I want to add my voice to that debate. Unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources necessary for States to carry out the reforms outlined in this bill, we will be doing serious harm to our children. I will vote in support of this bill today with the belief that it will improve the educational and learning opportunities of the school children in Vermont and across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to continue our commitment to education and to provide the resources necessary to ensure that this far-reaching legislation achieves its goals.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Helms entitled the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' aims to ensure that the Boy Scouts of America has access to our nations' public school facilities. The Boy Scouts already have access to our public schools, access that is guaranteed by the Constitution. As recently as this past Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed in the case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School that when a public school establishes a limited open forum, the school may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint among groups wishing to use that forum. Under that decision and its predecessors, the Boy Scouts already have the same right to use public schools as any other group. We do not need to echo the Constitution's clear protections through an amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Moreover, this amendment does more than simply reiterate what the Supreme Court has already made clear about access to our public schools. It conditions federal funding on the willingness of school districts to accept groups with ``membership or leadership criteria, that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.'' Districts that refuse space to any groups besides the Boy Scouts, or groups with similar views on homosexuality, are subject to no Congressionally-mandated penalty. Indeed, the only specially protected viewpoint under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would become the refusal to accept gays and lesbians. I am uncomfortable with the Congress endorsing these particular views above all others, and I believe that the courts would likely find this to be impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The Supreme Court has stated that: ``Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.'' Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 112 S. Ct. 501, 508 (1991). In my opinion, this amendment would do precisely what the Court has said the First Amendment prohibits. I oppose the Helms amendment because it accomplishes nothing except to provide special and unprecedented protection for one particular and deeply controversial view, the Boy Scouts' decision to ``prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.'' This is not the job of Congress, and it should not interfere with the important work we are doing to reform our education system. It is also worth noting that this amendment does not prevent schools from withdrawing their sponsorship of the Boy Scouts, as some supporters have stated. It simply guarantees the organization the access that they already have. This amendment is unnecessary. This debate needs to be about the education of our children, about pressing problems such as providing high quality teachers; ensuring access to technology; funding programs to assist low-income and disadvantaged students; and, renovating and repairing deteriorating schools. We have had a good debate on these issues over the past several weeks and have done so in a bipartisan and cooperative manner. As we come to what may be the closing hours of our consideration of the critical issue of education reform, I urge my colleagues to maintain the focus on our school children and the quality of the programs, facilities and services they receive and to oppose this divisive and unnecessary amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator DeWine in introducing bipartisan legislation to provide common-sense tax incentives to help address asbestos liability issues. First, our legislation would exempt investment income in an asbestos- related designated settlement funds from Federal income tax, much as the investment income in a 401(k) savings plan is exempt from Federal income tax under current law. To qualify for this exemption from Federal taxation, the principal purpose of the asbestos-related designated settlement fund must be to pay present and future claims to asbestos victims and their families. This tax incentive encourages businesses to create settlement funds to meet their asbestos-related liabilities, just as the tax incentive for 401(k) savings plans encourages workers to invest for their retirement. Second, our legislation recognizes the unique nature of asbestos- related diseases by providing a special ``carry-back'' rule for a company's losses from paying claims to asbestos victims and their families. Under current law, a company may carry back these costs from products sold in the last ten years. This carry-back period, however, fails to match the realities of asbestos-related diseases, which are often latent for forty or more years. In many cases, companies are paying asbestos-related claims for exposure to products that were produced a half-century ago. Our legislation would permit companies for whom the ten-year period provides no relief to carry back their current expenses from asbestos payments to victims and their families to the years in which the company produced the asbestos product. This extension of the carry-back tax rule is only fair given the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Amchem Products decision that Congress can provide a secure, fair and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. The appropriate role for Congress is to provide incentives for private parties to reach settlements, not to take away the legal rights of asbestos victims and their families. Our bipartisan bill provides these tax incentives for private parties involved in asbestos-related litigation to reach global settlements and for asbestos victims and their families to receive the full benefit of the incentives. Encouraging fair settlements while still preserving the legal rights of all parties involved is a win-win situation for business and asbestos victims. For example, Rutland Fire Clay Company, a family-run, 118-year-old small business in my home state of Vermont, recently reached a settlement with its insurers and the trial bar concerning the firm's asbestos problems. Unlike some big businesses that are trying to avoid any accountability for their asbestos responsibilities through national ``tort reform'' legislation, the Rutland Fire Clay Company and its President, Tom Martin, are doing the right thing within the legal system. The tax incentives in our bipartisan bill will support the Rutland Fire Clay Company and its employees while providing financial security for its settlement with asbestos victims and their families. I believe it is in the national interest to encourage fair and expeditious settlements between companies and asbestos victims. The legislation we are introducing today will encourage payments to victims while ensuring defendant firms remain solvent. I thank Senator DeWine for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan approach to provide a secure and fair means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure and to permit businesses with asbestos liabilities to efficiently meet their responsibilities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator DeWine in introducing bipartisan legislation to provide common-sense tax incentives to help address asbestos liability issues. First, our legislation would exempt investment income in an asbestos- related designated settlement funds from Federal income tax, much as the investment income in a 401(k) savings plan is exempt from Federal income tax under current law. To qualify for this exemption from Federal taxation, the principal purpose of the asbestos-related designated settlement fund must be to pay present and future claims to asbestos victims and their families. This tax incentive encourages businesses to create settlement funds to meet their asbestos-related liabilities, just as the tax incentive for 401(k) savings plans encourages workers to invest for their retirement. Second, our legislation recognizes the unique nature of asbestos- related diseases by providing a special ``carry-back'' rule for a company's losses from paying claims to asbestos victims and their families. Under current law, a company may carry back these costs from products sold in the last ten years. This carry-back period, however, fails to match the realities of asbestos-related diseases, which are often latent for forty or more years. In many cases, companies are paying asbestos-related claims for exposure to products that were produced a half-century ago. Our legislation would permit companies for whom the ten-year period provides no relief to carry back their current expenses from asbestos payments to victims and their families to the years in which the company produced the asbestos product. This extension of the carry-back tax rule is only fair given the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Amchem Products decision that Congress can provide a secure, fair and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. The appropriate role for Congress is to provide incentives for private parties to reach settlements, not to take away the legal rights of asbestos victims and their families. Our bipartisan bill provides these tax incentives for private parties involved in asbestos-related litigation to reach global settlements and for asbestos victims and their families to receive the full benefit of the incentives. Encouraging fair settlements while still preserving the legal rights of all parties involved is a win-win situation for business and asbestos victims. For example, Rutland Fire Clay Company, a family-run, 118-year-old small business in my home state of Vermont, recently reached a settlement with its insurers and the trial bar concerning the firm's asbestos problems. Unlike some big businesses that are trying to avoid any accountability for their asbestos responsibilities through national ``tort reform'' legislation, the Rutland Fire Clay Company and its President, Tom Martin, are doing the right thing within the legal system. The tax incentives in our bipartisan bill will support the Rutland Fire Clay Company and its employees while providing financial security for its settlement with asbestos victims and their families. I believe it is in the national interest to encourage fair and expeditious settlements between companies and asbestos victims. The legislation we are introducing today will encourage payments to victims while ensuring defendant firms remain solvent. I thank Senator DeWine for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan approach to provide a secure and fair means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure and to permit businesses with asbestos liabilities to efficiently meet their responsibilities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we introduce the George McGovern- Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001. This is a momentous day for needy children around the world. And it is America's opportunity to embark on a bold venture that can have unexpected benefits, and advance world peace and understanding. The name of our legislation honors two great leaders, and two great friends, Ambassador George McGovern and Senator Bob Dole. It was a privilege for me to serve on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee with both of them for many years. I have known both of them for years and they know that each hungry child is an empty promise. Nutrition is the key not only to health but to education and economic progress in many developing societies. This initiative taps America's agricultural bounty to become a catalyst for real and lasting change in many struggling nations. This bill can literally change the world. I am thrilled that Chairman Tom Harkin will join with ranking member Dick Lugar and me on this Senate bill. It would be hard to find, in the last 13 years, a nutrition or agriculture bill sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator Harkin and me--that is not now the law of the land. We are pleased to have Senator DeWine with us in this effort. I work with him on the Judiciary Committee and I know he is a strong fighter for children. Senators Kohl, Dorgan, Dashle, Kennedy, Durbin, Conrad, Johnson, Landrieu, and Dayton are also on the bill. Each, in their own right, are leaders in protecting children. This bill will make private voluntary organizations and the World Food Program full partners with USDA in implementing this bold education and child nutrition vision. I want to make clear that the bill unambiguously provides that PVOs are full partners with USDA, just as the WFP will be. Ambassador George McGovern has said about this effort that, ``Dollar for dollar it is the best investment we can make in creating a healthier, better educated and more effective global citizenry.'' He spoke of how the program would be of ``enormous benefit'' to the education of girls, since in Third World countries parents will also send girls to school if meals are offered. I want to point out that one Catholic Relief Services project offering meals and education in Ghana has seen the ``number of girls enrolled in school jump by 88 percent, and their attendance rose by 50 percent.'' In Pakistan, the World Food Program offered cooking oil to families if they sent their children, especially girls, to school. The parents' response was overwhelming and the ``enrollment of girls has doubled.'' In similar projects in Niger ``girls' attendance rose by 75 percent, and by 100 percent in Morocco.'' This is clearly a great idea for children who otherwise may have no hope, and no future. Most beginnings rarely seem momentous at the time, and then, looking back, every detail is studied by students and scholars and meaning is attached to every step. I want to chronicle some aspects of this beginning when memories are fresh. I will again mention my good friend Ambassador George McGovern. First, I appreciate that President George W. Bush decided to keep George McGovern on as Ambassador to the U.N. food agencies in Rome, Italy. This demonstrated a keen bipartisan spirit, and the best choice for the job. Last year, George McGovern authored a paper setting forth a bold vision for a multinational effort to provide meals to children in school settings. He is an expert having worked on school lunch issues during his eighteen years on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, as a Director of the Food for Peace program, and now as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. food agencies. He further explained this bold vision at Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on July 27, 2000. What a pleasure it was for me to listen to both Ambassador McGovern and Former Majority Leader Bob Dole at this hearing presided over by my friend and colleague, then Chairman Dick Lugar. The hearing featured two giants in the history of nutrition programs adding another chapter to their legacies, under the watchful eye of a very decent, intelligent, and understanding Senator, Senator Lugar, who cares about the state of the world. At the hearing, George McGovern said that ``if we could achieve the goal of reaching 300 million hungry children with one good meal every day, that would transform life on this planet.'' He pointed out another significant benefit in that `'it would raise the income of American farmers and those in other countries that have farm surpluses.'' Senator Dole, another giant in the history of nutrition programs, supported this vision and commended the Clinton administration for launching a $300 million school feeding pilot program to feed hungry children throughout the world. He said, ``I can think of no better solution to the problem [of agricultural surpluses] than to support a program that will help our farmers while putting food in the stomachs of desperately hungry and malnourished children.'' This brings me to another leading player in this bipartisan effort, former President William Clinton. He elevated these issues by raising the idea at the G8 meeting in Okinawa, Japan, in July, 2000. He urged the eight industrialized democracies at the start of the new millennium to contribute some of their wealth, natural resources and goodness to help the next generation of the world. The President announced this $300 million Global Food for Education Initiative to feed hungry children and pledged to work with other nations to seek support and contributions from them. This gave the McGovern-Dole proposal new force and captured the interest and attention of other nations. The President's staff, including Tom Friendman and chief of staff John Podesta, worked diligently to get this program off the ground and dedicated career staff at USDA, including Richard Fritz and Mary Chambliss, worked long hours to launch the President's initiative. At that same hearing, then Secretary Dan Glickman noted that worldwide 120 million children are not enrolled in school and that tens of millions drop out before achieving basic literacy. He explained how a global school meals program would reduce the incidence of child labor and have the potential to raise academic performance and increase literacy rates. He noted what a draw school meals can be, when a school feeding program in the Dominican Republic was temporarily suspended, 25 percent of the children dropped out of school. Another tremendous force in the history of this initiative is Catherine Bertini, the Executive Director of the World Food Program. I have known Cathy since I first met her when she was being confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer Service over a decade ago, under President George Bush. She was an outstanding and creative leader in that job and I was happy to support her for the World Food Program position. I treasure memories of a detailed briefing she gave my wife, Marcelle, and me at her apartment in Rome, Italy. Her concern for hungry children, her command of the facts and her extreme competence and management abilities have made her a truly outstanding director. In an interesting coincidence, my chief advisor and legal counsel on nutrition policies since 1987, Ed Barron, has been a friend of Cathy's since high school. He went to school in Homer, NY, and Cathy attended neighboring Cortland High School. Cathy explained that in one original idea the WFP offered ``take home'' food to a family for every month that a girl attended school regularly. Cathy noted that `'the results have been dramatic'' as school attendance greatly increased. Cathy proposed some great principles that, I agree, should be followed. Such an international feeding program should be sustainable, it should be mostly school- based, and it should be targeted to the most needy. Of course, we need to employ a loose definition of school, since a teacher can teach and school children can learn in practically any setting. In addition, she noted that the United States should use its special knowledge and experience to help other countries develop these programs. USDA and US AID experts should make periodic visits to work with national personnel and PVOs and others to build capacity and sustainable projects. Joseph Scalise who represents the World Food Program here in Washington, D.C. has done a wonderful job keeping me and my staff informed of developments regarding WFP efforts and views. Another major force in international feeding efforts is Ellen Levinson. As Executive Director of the Coalition for Food Aid, she has done a very effective job representing many private voluntary organizations who provide food and other assistance throughout the world. She is a strong advocate for an integrated approach for physical and cognitive child development, with a focus on much more than just a meal or food ration. In addition to food assistance, Ellen wants the initiative to provide quality education and development. Another leader in the area has been my good friend Marshall Matz. He has been a vigorous advocate and friendly adviser in this effort. I also want to mention Elizabeth Darrow of my staff who has played a major role in helping organize this effort and making sure we kept it on track. This bill has been greatly advanced by staff of Senators Harkin and Luger. Chief of Staff Mark Halverson and chief economist Stephanie Mercier attended many meetings and helped craft a fine bill. The Republican Chief of Staff for the Committee, Keith Luse, and his staff including Chris Salisbury, Dave Johnson and Michael Knipe, provided extremely useful guidance and advice about how best to structure this program and help ensure that the benefits get delivered to needy children. This was truly a team effort. As always, the outstanding drafting skills of Gary Endicott of Senate Legislative Counsel are much appreciated. I have many times recognized his tremendous service to the Senate. Congressman Jim McGovern and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, along with Congressman Tony Hall and others, recognized the bold potential of this effort right from the start. Many staff working for the other body provided a great deal of assistance, but Cindy Buhl needs to be especially recognized for her long hours of work, and dedication to the project. Cindy, and her boss Jim McGovern, took command of this effort and deserve a lot of credit. This bipartisan, bicameral effort, now looks to the new Administration for assistance. I, and all my colleagues, are eager to work with the Bush White House and Secretary Veneman to make this international education and child nutrition initiative a success. It may be imperative to have the President extend the current pilot program for one more year to insure continuity of service, and to provide an opportunity to work out all the kinks in a new project. The President could provide additional funding out of the Commodity Credit Corporation to help us bridge the gap. I also want to thank the GAO team that is working on analyzing the current effort. The GAO is helping to provide valuable advice on how to improve this effort. I want to briefly mention some thoughts from Ambassador McGovern's book, ``The Third Freedom.'' He begins with: ``Hunger is a political condition. The earth has enough knowledge and resources to eradicate this ancient scourge.'' I completely agree--and because addressing hunger is a moral imperative, the U.S. should lead the way. I am very hopeful that many nations who we have helped in the past--including economic gains in Europe who benefited from our Marshall Plan after WWII--will follow our lead and offer food, technical assistance and financial aid. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislative and moral effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we introduce the George McGovern- Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001. This is a momentous day for needy children around the world. And it is America's opportunity to embark on a bold venture that can have unexpected benefits, and advance world peace and understanding. The name of our legislation honors two great leaders, and two great friends, Ambassador George McGovern and Senator Bob Dole. It was a privilege for me to serve on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee with both of them for many years. I have known both of them for years and they know that each hungry child is an empty promise. Nutrition is the key not only to health but to education and economic progress in many developing societies. This initiative taps America's agricultural bounty to become a catalyst for real and lasting change in many struggling nations. This bill can literally change the world. I am thrilled that Chairman Tom Harkin will join with ranking member Dick Lugar and me on this Senate bill. It would be hard to find, in the last 13 years, a nutrition or agriculture bill sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator Harkin and me--that is not now the law of the land. We are pleased to have Senator DeWine with us in this effort. I work with him on the Judiciary Committee and I know he is a strong fighter for children. Senators Kohl, Dorgan, Dashle, Kennedy, Durbin, Conrad, Johnson, Landrieu, and Dayton are also on the bill. Each, in their own right, are leaders in protecting children. This bill will make private voluntary organizations and the World Food Program full partners with USDA in implementing this bold education and child nutrition vision. I want to make clear that the bill unambiguously provides that PVOs are full partners with USDA, just as the WFP will be. Ambassador George McGovern has said about this effort that, ``Dollar for dollar it is the best investment we can make in creating a healthier, better educated and more effective global citizenry.'' He spoke of how the program would be of ``enormous benefit'' to the education of girls, since in Third World countries parents will also send girls to school if meals are offered. I want to point out that one Catholic Relief Services project offering meals and education in Ghana has seen the ``number of girls enrolled in school jump by 88 percent, and their attendance rose by 50 percent.'' In Pakistan, the World Food Program offered cooking oil to families if they sent their children, especially girls, to school. The parents' response was overwhelming and the ``enrollment of girls has doubled.'' In similar projects in Niger ``girls' attendance rose by 75 percent, and by 100 percent in Morocco.'' This is clearly a great idea for children who otherwise may have no hope, and no future. Most beginnings rarely seem momentous at the time, and then, looking back, every detail is studied by students and scholars and meaning is attached to every step. I want to chronicle some aspects of this beginning when memories are fresh. I will again mention my good friend Ambassador George McGovern. First, I appreciate that President George W. Bush decided to keep George McGovern on as Ambassador to the U.N. food agencies in Rome, Italy. This demonstrated a keen bipartisan spirit, and the best choice for the job. Last year, George McGovern authored a paper setting forth a bold vision for a multinational effort to provide meals to children in school settings. He is an expert having worked on school lunch issues during his eighteen years on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, as a Director of the Food for Peace program, and now as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. food agencies. He further explained this bold vision at Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on July 27, 2000. What a pleasure it was for me to listen to both Ambassador McGovern and Former Majority Leader Bob Dole at this hearing presided over by my friend and colleague, then Chairman Dick Lugar. The hearing featured two giants in the history of nutrition programs adding another chapter to their legacies, under the watchful eye of a very decent, intelligent, and understanding Senator, Senator Lugar, who cares about the state of the world. At the hearing, George McGovern said that ``if we could achieve the goal of reaching 300 million hungry children with one good meal every day, that would transform life on this planet.'' He pointed out another significant benefit in that `'it would raise the income of American farmers and those in other countries that have farm surpluses.'' Senator Dole, another giant in the history of nutrition programs, supported this vision and commended the Clinton administration for launching a $300 million school feeding pilot program to feed hungry children throughout the world. He said, ``I can think of no better solution to the problem [of agricultural surpluses] than to support a program that will help our farmers while putting food in the stomachs of desperately hungry and malnourished children.'' This brings me to another leading player in this bipartisan effort, former President William Clinton. He elevated these issues by raising the idea at the G8 meeting in Okinawa, Japan, in July, 2000. He urged the eight industrialized democracies at the start of the new millennium to contribute some of their wealth, natural resources and goodness to help the next generation of the world. The President announced this $300 million Global Food for Education Initiative to feed hungry children and pledged to work with other nations to seek support and contributions from them. This gave the McGovern-Dole proposal new force and captured the interest and attention of other nations. The President's staff, including Tom Friendman and chief of staff John Podesta, worked diligently to get this program off the ground and dedicated career staff at USDA, including Richard Fritz and Mary Chambliss, worked long hours to launch the President's initiative. At that same hearing, then Secretary Dan Glickman noted that worldwide 120 million children are not enrolled in school and that tens of millions drop out before achieving basic literacy. He explained how a global school meals program would reduce the incidence of child labor and have the potential to raise academic performance and increase literacy rates. He noted what a draw school meals can be, when a school feeding program in the Dominican Republic was temporarily suspended, 25 percent of the children dropped out of school. Another tremendous force in the history of this initiative is Catherine Bertini, the Executive Director of the World Food Program. I have known Cathy since I first met her when she was being confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer Service over a decade ago, under President George Bush. She was an outstanding and creative leader in that job and I was happy to support her for the World Food Program position. I treasure memories of a detailed briefing she gave my wife, Marcelle, and me at her apartment in Rome, Italy. Her concern for hungry children, her command of the facts and her extreme competence and management abilities have made her a truly outstanding director. In an interesting coincidence, my chief advisor and legal counsel on nutrition policies since 1987, Ed Barron, has been a friend of Cathy's since high school. He went to school in Homer, NY, and Cathy attended neighboring Cortland High School. Cathy explained that in one original idea the WFP offered ``take home'' food to a family for every month that a girl attended school regularly. Cathy noted that `'the results have been dramatic'' as school attendance greatly increased. Cathy proposed some great principles that, I agree, should be followed. Such an international feeding program should be sustainable, it should be mostly school- based, and it should be targeted to the most needy. Of course, we need to employ a loose definition of school, since a teacher can teach and school children can learn in practically any setting. In addition, she noted that the United States should use its special knowledge and experience to help other countries develop these programs. USDA and US AID experts should make periodic visits to work with national personnel and PVOs and others to build capacity and sustainable projects. Joseph Scalise who represents the World Food Program here in Washington, D.C. has done a wonderful job keeping me and my staff informed of developments regarding WFP efforts and views. Another major force in international feeding efforts is Ellen Levinson. As Executive Director of the Coalition for Food Aid, she has done a very effective job representing many private voluntary organizations who provide food and other assistance throughout the world. She is a strong advocate for an integrated approach for physical and cognitive child development, with a focus on much more than just a meal or food ration. In addition to food assistance, Ellen wants the initiative to provide quality education and development. Another leader in the area has been my good friend Marshall Matz. He has been a vigorous advocate and friendly adviser in this effort. I also want to mention Elizabeth Darrow of my staff who has played a major role in helping organize this effort and making sure we kept it on track. This bill has been greatly advanced by staff of Senators Harkin and Luger. Chief of Staff Mark Halverson and chief economist Stephanie Mercier attended many meetings and helped craft a fine bill. The Republican Chief of Staff for the Committee, Keith Luse, and his staff including Chris Salisbury, Dave Johnson and Michael Knipe, provided extremely useful guidance and advice about how best to structure this program and help ensure that the benefits get delivered to needy children. This was truly a team effort. As always, the outstanding drafting skills of Gary Endicott of Senate Legislative Counsel are much appreciated. I have many times recognized his tremendous service to the Senate. Congressman Jim McGovern and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, along with Congressman Tony Hall and others, recognized the bold potential of this effort right from the start. Many staff working for the other body provided a great deal of assistance, but Cindy Buhl needs to be especially recognized for her long hours of work, and dedication to the project. Cindy, and her boss Jim McGovern, took command of this effort and deserve a lot of credit. This bipartisan, bicameral effort, now looks to the new Administration for assistance. I, and all my colleagues, are eager to work with the Bush White House and Secretary Veneman to make this international education and child nutrition initiative a success. It may be imperative to have the President extend the current pilot program for one more year to insure continuity of service, and to provide an opportunity to work out all the kinks in a new project. The President could provide additional funding out of the Commodity Credit Corporation to help us bridge the gap. I also want to thank the GAO team that is working on analyzing the current effort. The GAO is helping to provide valuable advice on how to improve this effort. I want to briefly mention some thoughts from Ambassador McGovern's book, ``The Third Freedom.'' He begins with: ``Hunger is a political condition. The earth has enough knowledge and resources to eradicate this ancient scourge.'' I completely agree--and because addressing hunger is a moral imperative, the U.S. should lead the way. I am very hopeful that many nations who we have helped in the past--including economic gains in Europe who benefited from our Marshall Plan after WWII--will follow our lead and offer food, technical assistance and financial aid. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislative and moral effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is once again passing legislation to retroactively renew Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects family farmers and helps them prevent foreclosures and forced auctions of their farms. While I strongly support providing our family farmers with bankruptcy protection so they can continue farming the land, it is time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code. Too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country when temporary extensions of the chapter expire. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact Chapter 12 on a permanent basis. Less than two months ago, Congress passed H.R. 254 to retroactively renew Chapter 12 since it expired on July 1, 2000. H.R. 254, however, renewed the family farmer bankruptcy protections until only June 1, 2001. Now Congress must once again pass narrow legislation to retroactively renew Chapter 12. This time H.R. 1914 renews Chapter 12 for four additional months--until October 1, 2001. As I did on final passage of H.R. 254, I again commend Representative Nick Smith and Representative Tammy Baldwin for their leadership in working together to secure House passage of legislation to retroactively renew Chapter 12. Thanks to their bipartisan efforts the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1914 on June 6 by a vote of 411-1. Senator Carnahan and Senator Bond introduced similar legislation to help our family farmers forced into the bankruptcy process. On behalf of family farmers in Missouri and across the country, I commend them for their bipartisan efforts as well. During the debate earlier this year on comprehensive changes to the bankruptcy system, some proponents of the controversial reform bill claimed that it must be passed to restore Chapter 12 to the Bankruptcy Code. I hope today's action to pass a stand alone Chapter 12 bill will make it clear to all that the Senate does not have to pass a mammoth bankruptcy reform bill to provide family farmers with bankruptcy protection. I also hope today's action will put an end to any efforts to use Chapter 12 as leverage to enact controversial bankruptcy reform legislation. Our family farmers deserve better. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 1914 to retroactively give our family farmers bankruptcy protection if they fall on hard times. It is now time for Congress to permanently establish Chapter 12 as part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a secure safety net for our nation's family farmers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. I rise today to talk about a unique education program nestled in the hills of Burlington, VT. Champlain College is one of the many higher education institutions in my home State and it has distinguished itself as a leader in career-oriented education. Under the leadership of President Roger Perry, Champlain College provides its students with innovative distance learning and workforce development programs to build the skills of Vermonters. While I have long known of the quality offerings of Champlain College, I was very pleased to see a story in the Los Angeles Times recently about one program in particular that serves single parents on welfare who want to earn a college degree. With the recent reform by the Federal Government of our Nation's welfare system, many individuals are seeking training that can lead to better jobs and ultimately to increased wages. In response to this growing need, an 11-year-old program at Champlain College aimed at moving single parents off welfare is receiving attention nationwide. The impressive statistics from this public-private partnership clearly indicate its success--less than 10 percent of those participating in the program drop out; most in the program earn a 2-year associate degree; and, many even go on to receive a 4-year bachelor's degree. According to President Roger Perry, more than 90 percent of the single parents who graduate from this program have not returned to the welfare program. This program is helping single parents break the welfare cycle and show their children the importance of getting a college degree as a step toward supporting themselves and their family. Its success also reinforces Champlain College's role in Vermont as a leader in career- oriented education. I commend President Roger Perry, the faculty and staff, and especially the students for continuing to make Champlain College a model for quality higher education. I ask unanimous consent that the following article from the May 13, 2001 issue of the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President. I am pleased that the Senate is considering the TEACH Act, S. 487, today. This legislation will help clarify the law and allow educators to use the same rich material in distance learning over the Internet that they are able to use in face- to-face classroom instruction. The Senate has been focused on education reform for the past two months. The legislation we report today reflects our understanding that we must be able to use new technologies to advance our education goals in a manner that recognizes and protects copyrighted works. The genesis of this bill was in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), where we asked the Copyright Office to study the complex copyright issues involved in distance education and to make recommendations to us for any legislative changes. The Copyright Office released its report in May, 1999, and made valuable suggestions on how modest changes in our copyright law could go a long way to foster the appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning activities. Senator Hatch and I then introduced the TEACH Act, S. 487, relying heavily on the legislative recommendations of that report. Marybeth Peters, the Registrar of Copyrights, and her staff deserve our heartfelt thanks for that comprehensive study and their work on this legislation. At the March 13, 2001, hearing on this legislation, we heard from people who both supported the legislation and had concerns about it. I appreciate that some copyright owners disagreed with the Copyright Office's conclusions and believed instead that current copyright laws are adequate to enable and foster legitimate distance learning activities. We have made efforts in refining the original legislation to address the valid concerns of both the copyright owners and the educational community. This has not been an easy process and I want to extend my thanks to all of those who worked hard and with us to craft the legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee and considered by the Senate today. The growth of distance learning is exploding, largely because it is responsive to the needs of older, non-traditional students. The Copyright Office, ``CO,'' report noted two years ago that, by 2002, the number of students taking distance education courses will represent 15 percent of all higher education students. Moreover, the typical average distance learning student is 34 years old, employed full-time and has previous college credit. More than half are women. In increasing numbers, students in other countries are benefitting from educational opportunities here through U.S. distance education programs. (CO Report, at pp. 19-20). In high schools, distance education makes advanced college placement and college equivalency courses available--a great opportunity for residents in our more-rural states. In colleges, distance education makes lifelong learning a practical reality. Not only does distance education make it more convenient for many students to pursue an education, for students who have full- time work commitments, who live in rural areas or in foreign countries, who have difficulty obtaining child or elder care, or who have physical disabilities, distance education may be the only means for them to pursue an education. These are the people with busy schedules who need the flexibility that on-line programs offer: virtual classrooms accessible when the student is ready to log-on. In rural areas, distance education provides an opportunity for schools to offer courses that their students might otherwise not be able enjoy. It is therefore no surprise that in Vermont, and many other rural states, distance learning is a critical component of any quality educational and economic development system. The most recent Vermont Telecommunications Plan, which was published in 1999, identifies distance learning as being critical to Vermont's development. It also recommends that Vermont consider ``using its purchasing power to accelerate the introduction of new [distance learning] services in Vermont.'' Technology has empowered individuals in the most remote communities to have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their education and ensure they are competitive for jobs in the 21st Century. Several years ago, I was proud to work with the state in establishing the Vermont Interactive Television network. This constant two-way video-conferencing system can reach communities, schools and businesses in every corner of the state. Since we first successfully secured funds to build the backbone of the system, Vermont has constructed fourteen sites. The VIT system is currently running at full capacity and has demonstrated that in Vermont, technology highways are just as important as our transportation highways. No one single technology should be the platform for distance learning. In Vermont, creative uses of available resources have put in place a distance learning system that employs T-1 lines in some areas and traditional internet modem hook-ups in others. Several years ago, the Grand Isle Supervisory Union received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to link all the schools within the district with fiber optic cable. There are not a lot of students in this Supervisory Union but there is a lot of land separating one school from another. The bandwidth created by the fiber optic cables has not only improved the educational opportunities in the four Grand Isle towns, but it has also provided a vital economic boost to the area's businesses. While there are wonderful examples of the use of distance learning inside Vermont, the opportunities provided by these technologies are not limited to the borders of one state, or even one country. Champlain College, a small school in Burlington, Vermont has shown this is true when it adopted a strategic plan to provide distance learning for students throughout the world.. Under the leadership of President Roger Perry, Champlain College now has more students enrolled than any other college in Vermont. The campus in Vermont has not been overwhelmed with the increase. Instead, Champlain now teaches a large number of students overseas through its on-line curriculum. Similarly, Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont, offers innovative graduate programs designed for working professionals with classes that meet not only in person but also online. The Internet, with its interactive, multi-media capabilities, has been a significant development for distance learning. By contrast to the traditional, passive approach of distance learning where a student located remotely from a classroom was able to watch a lecture being broadcast at a fixed time over the air, distance learners today can participate in real-time class discussions, or in simultaneous multimedia projects. The Copyright Office report confirmed what I have assumed for some time--that ``the computer is the most versatile of distance education instruments,'' not just in terms of flexible schedules, but also in terms of the material available. More than 20 years ago, the Congress recognized the potential of broadcast and cable technology to supplement classroom teaching, and to bring the classroom to those who, because of their disabilities or other special circumstances, are unable to attend classes. We included in the present Copyright Act certain exemptions for distance learning, in addition to the general fair use exemption. The time has come to do more. The recent report of the Web-Based Education Commission, headed by former Senator Bob Kerrey, says: Current copyright law governing distance education . . . was based on broadcast models of telecourses for distance education. That law was not established with the virtual classroom in mind, nor does it resolve emerging issues of multimedia online, or provide a framework for permitting digital transmissions. The Kerrey report concluded that our copyright laws were ``inappropriately restrictive.'' (p. 97). Under current law, the performance or display of any work in the course of face-to-face instruction in a classroom is exempt from the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. In addition, the copyright law allows transmissions of certain performances or displays of copyrighted works but restricts such transmissions subject to the exemption to those sent to a classroom or a similar place which is normally devoted to instruction, to persons whose disabilities or other special circumstances prevent classroom attendance, or to government employees. While this exemption is technology neutral and does not limit exempt ``transmissions'' to distance learning broadcasts, the exemption does not authorize the reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works a limitation that has enormous implications for transmissions over computer networks. Digital transmissions over computer networks involve multiple acts of reproduction as a data packet is moved from one computer to another. The TEACH Act makes three significant expansions in the distance learning exemption in the Copyright Act, while minimizing the additional risks to copyright owners that are inherent in exploiting works in a digital format. First, the bill eliminates the current eligibility requirements for the distance learning exemption that the instruction occur in a physical classroom or that special circumstances prevent the attendance of students in the classroom. At the same time, the bill would maintain and clarify the requirement that the exemption is limited to use in mediated instructional activities of governmental bodies and accredited non-profit educational institutions. Second, the bill clarifies that the distance learning exemption covers the transient or temporary copies that may occur through the automatic technical process of transmitting material over the Internet. Third, the current distance learning exemption only permits the transmission of the performance of ``non-dramatic literary or musical works,'' but does not allow the transmission of movies or videotapes, or the performance of plays. The Kerrey Commission report cited this limitation as an obstacle to distance learning in current copyright law and noted the following examples: A music instructor may play songs and other pieces of music in a classroom, but must seek permission from copyright holders in order to incorporate these works into an online version of the same class. A children's literature instructor may routinely display illustrations from childrens' books in the classroom, but must get licenses for each one for on online version of the course. To alleviate this disparity, the TEACH Act would amend current law to allow educators to show reasonable and limited portions of dramatic literary and musical works, audiovisual works, and sound recordings, in addition to the complete versions of nondramatic literary and musical works which are currently exempted. This legislation is a balanced proposal that expands the educational use exemption in the copyright law for distance learning, but also contains a number of safeguards for copyright owners. In particular, the bill excludes from the exemption those works that are produced primarily for instructional use, because for such works, unlike entertainment products or materials of a general educational nature, the exemption could significantly cut into primary markets, impairing incentives to create. Indeed, the Web-Based Education Commission urged the development of ``high quality online educational content that meets the highest standards of educational excellence.'' Copyright protection can help provide the incentive for the development of such content. In addition, the bill requires that the government or educational institution using the exemption transmit copyrighted works that are lawfully made or acquired and use technological protection safeguards to protect against retention of the work and ensure that the dissemination of material covered under the exemption is limited only to the students who are intended to receive it. Finally, the bill directs the Patent and Trademark Office to report to the Congress with a description of the various technological protection systems in use, available, or being developed to protect digitized copyrighted works and prevent infringement, including those being developed in private, voluntary, industry-led entities through an open broad based consensus process. The original version of this study proposed by Senator Hatch in an amendment filed to the Elementary and Secondary Education bill, S. 1, proved highly controversial. I appreciate that copyright owners are frustrated at the pace at which technological measures are being developed and implemented to protect digital copyrighted works, particularly as high-speed Internet connections and broadband service becomes more readily available. At the same time, computer and software manufacturers and providers of Internet services are appropriately opposed to the government mandating use of a particular technological protection measure or setting the specification standards for such measures. Indeed, copyright owners are a diverse group, and some owners may want more flexibility and variety in the technical protection measures available for their works than would result if the government intervened too soon and mandated a particular standard or system. I am glad that with the constructive assistance of Senator Cantwell and other members of the Judiciary Committee, we were able to include a version of the PTO study in the bill that is limited to providing information to the Congress. Distance education is an important issue to both Senator Hatch and to me, and to the people of all of our States. This is a good bill and I urge the Congress to act promptly to see this legislation enacted.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are all familiar with the recent developments in the Oklahoma City bombing case. Last month, just 6 days before Timothy McVeigh was to be executed, we learned that the FBI had withheld thousands of pages of documents from McVeigh's defense team. The execution was then postponed until June 11 to give McVeigh and his lawyers time to review the evidence that should have been provided to them before the trial began. The bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building 6 years ago left 168 people dead and hundreds more injured. The Federal Government spent millions investigating and prosecuting McVeigh, and millions more on his defense. The prosecution and the courts bent over backwards to ensure that he got a fair trial--one in whose outcome all Americans would have confidence. A member of the prosecution team once called McVeigh's trial ``a shining example . . . of how the criminal justice system should work.'' I have great respect for the dedicated team of prosecutors and law enforcement agents who worked on the Oklahoma City bombing case. I honor their commitment and I commend their accomplishments. But I agree with the trial judge that the FBI's belated discovery of thousands of pages of documents that were not turned over to the defense was ``shocking.'' And I believe that this shocking incident holds some lessons for us about our criminal justice system. First, something we all know, even if we do not want to admit: Mistakes happen. Even in the highest of high profile cases, where the world is watching every step of the way, and even when the government devotes its most talented personnel and spares no expense, you cannot eliminate the possibility of human error or, as appears to be the case here, an unreliable computer system. That should tell us something about other less infamous cases. The average case, even the average death penalty case, does not get the benefit of intense media scrutiny, and is not litigated by the best lawyers in the land. In the average death penalty case in Alabama, for example, the defense does not get millions of public dollars. Sometimes, defense lawyers are paid less than the minimum wage for defending a man's life. Too often, in the average death penalty case, corners are cut. We saw what comes of corner cutting last month, when Jeffrey Pierce was released from prison in Oklahoma. He served 15 years of a 65-year sentence for a rape he did not commit, because a police chemist claimed his hair was ``microscopically consistent'' with hair found at the crime scene. Turns out it was someone else's hair. Whoops: Mistakes happen. The second lesson to be learned from the McVeigh case is this: Process matters. The new documents that the FBI discovered may have no bearing on McVeigh's guilt or sentence, but that does not excuse the FBI's initial oversight in failing to produce them. The right to a fair trial is not some arcane legal technicality. It is the bedrock constitutional guarantee that protects us all against wrongful convictions. The fair trial violation in Jeffrey Pierce's case did have a bearing on his guilt or innocence, and cost an innocent man 15 years of his life. Finally, the McVeigh case reminds us that however much we may long for finality and closure in criminal cases, our first duty must always be to the truth. While I am dismayed by the FBI's failure to produce evidence 6 years ago, I would be far more troubled if it had tried to cover up its mistake. It appears that the FBI and the Department of Justice acted responsibly under the circumstances, by turning over the materials in an orderly manner and giving McVeigh time to consider his response. The Government's willingness to acknowledge its mistake and uphold the rule of law was proper and commendable. It also stands in sharp contrast to the actions of certain State and local authorities. The sad truth is that in America in the 21st Century, with the most sophisticated law enforcement and truth- detection technologies that the world has ever seen, there are still some law enforcers who would rather keep out critical evidence, and hide the system's potential mistakes from the public, than make sure of the truth. There are still people playing ``tough on crime'' politics with people's lives, at the expense of truth and justice. A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That duty does not end just because the defendant has been convicted. As Attorney General Ashcroft said in announcing the postponement of McVeigh's execution: ``If any questions or doubts remain about this case, it would cast a permanent cloud over justice, diminishing its value and questioning its integrity.'' One cannot think of the Oklahoma bombing case without thinking of the hundreds of victims whose lives that bomb shattered. We as a society cannot give the families back their loved ones, but we can and should give them closure. As the Attorney General acknowledged, you cannot have real closure without a fair and complete legal process that ensures that all of the evidence has been properly examined. We cannot achieve infallibility in our criminal justice system, and we cannot spend millions of dollars on every trial. No one suggests that we should. But if we want real justice for those defendants, like Jeffrey Pierce, who happen to be innocent, and real closure for victims of violent crime, we must ensure that we as a society do not cut corners in the administration of criminal justice. That requires, at a minimum, that we provide competent counsel to capital defendants and make DNA testing available in all cases where it could demonstrate the defendant's innocence. Process matters, for victims and defendants alike, and I hope that we will take real action in this Congress to pass the Innocence Protection Act and stop cutting the corners. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a recent Wall Street Journal article discussing the growing support for stronger protections against wrongful executions.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The Senate must determine whether a nominee to the position of Solicitor General understands and is suited to this extraordinary role. From Benjamin Bristow in 1870, to William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., from Robert Jackson to Archibald Cox, Thurgood Marshall and Erwin Griswold, we have had extraordinary people serve this country as our Solicitors General. It is with the importance of this position in mind that I approached the nomination of Ted Olson to serve as Solicitor General of the United States. From my initial meeting with him in advance of the April 5, 2001, hearing and thereafter, I have been assessing this nomination against the responsibilities of that important office. Initial Concerns. At the outset, I raised with Mr. Olson my concern that his sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind. After review of his testimony both orally and in answers to written questions, I have become doubly concerned that Mr. Olson has not shown a willingness or ability to be sufficiently candid and forthcoming with the Senate so that I would have confidence in his abilities to carry out the responsibilities of the Solicitor General and be the voice of the United States before the United States Supreme Court. In addition, I am concerned about other matters in his background. I will detail below the source of my concerns about Mr. Olson's candor before the Committee about his involvement with the American Spectator and the ``Arkansas Project.'' His initial responses to my questions at his hearing prompted concern that the Committee might not have heard a candid and complete accounting from Mr. Olson. Rather than respond directly and say all that he did do in connection with those matters, Mr. Olson chose to respond by misdirection and say what he did not do. He initially described his role as extremely limited as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Spectator Educational Foundation and implied that he was involved only after the fact, when that Board conducted a financial audit and terminated the ``Arkansas Project'' activities in 1998. Need for Committee Inquiry. Mr. Olson has modified his answers over time, his recollection has changed, and he has conceded additional knowledge and involvement. His initial minimizing of his role appears not be consistent with the whole story. Because his responses over time left significant questions and because of press accounts that contradicted the minimized role to which he initially admitted, I wanted to work with Senator Hatch before the Judiciary Committee voted on this nomination to have the Committee perform the bipartisan factual inquiry needed to set forth the facts and resolve all questions and concerns about Mr. Olson's answers. Indeed, Senator Hatch postponed one Committee vote on Mr. Olson's nomination on May 10 and admitted that ``some legitimate questions'' have arisen and that ``legitimate issues'' were involved. He said that after a May 10 article in the Washington Post indicated that Mr. Olson's role at American Spectator and the activities of the ``Arkansas Project'' were more than just as a member of the Board of Directors in 1998 to which a financial audit was provided. When I did not hear from Senator Hatch about how he wished to proceed to resolve those legitimate questions, I sent him a letter on May 12 proposing a course of action to avoid any undue delay. After I spend my proposal, Senator Hatch and I talked about it. He said he would be getting back to me and I held out hope that we would be able to proceed in a fair and bipartisan way to get to the facts and let all Members of the Committee make their own assessment before they voted upon the nomination. Instead, Senator Hatch was apparently just waiting for a letter from Mr. Olson, which arrived accompanied by short, solicited statements from a few selected supporters so that he could unilaterally declare the matter closed. None of these statements could serve as a substitute for the Committee doing its job, and, instead of playing catch-up to the press, exercising the due diligence that the American people expect from the Judiciary Committee in our review of a nominee for a position sometimes called the ``Tenth Supreme Court Justice.'' In essence, the question I wished to examine was whether Mr. Olson fully informed the Committee in response to direct questions about his role in the American Spectator and the ``Arkansas Project.'' This was never a question of whether there was illegal conduct. Committee Vote. Rather than proceed in a bipartisan way to establish the factual record needed to evaluate Mr. Olson's characterization of his activities, Senator Hatch rejected even an inquiry of limited duration that would have involved jointly interviewing seven individuals, who had already been quoted or referred to by the press, with contemporaneous knowledge from the time in question, and gathering relevant background documents, which had also been referred to in the press. He pressed forward with a vote in Committee on this nomination that resulted in a 9-9 tie vote. While usually a nomination on such a vote would not be reported to the Senate, circumstances have changed that prompt me to give my consent for Mr. Olson's nomination to be considered. With the constructive assistance of both Leaders and their staffs, we were able over the past week to conduct a limited, bipartisan inquiry on the matters of concern raised by Mr. Olson's responses to the Committee. Limited Bipartisan Inquiry: Following the 9-9 vote on this nomination in the Judiciary Committee on May 17, 2001, Senator Hatch and I released a joint statement the next day indicating that we were discussing how to move forward on the nomination and to address specific concerns that Members might have prior to the confirmation vote. As part of this inquiry, Committee staff reviewed, on a bipartisan basis, a heavily-redacted version of the report of the Office of Special Review (OSR), prepared by Michael Shaheen and May 21, 2001 responses by Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray, including to questions posed jointly by Senators Hatch and me. One of these letters is in response to a query from Senator Hatch sent unilaterally and without notice to me. On May 22, Senator Hatch and I jointly released for review by all the members of the Senate the two May 21 letters received from Mr. Ray and the redacted OSR report--with additional redactions to remove the names of specific individuals other than the nominee. In addition, Senator Hatch released a May 22 letter to colleagues that included 71-pages of American Spectator-related records, which were anonymously delivered to my Judiciary Committee and which shed light on how the ``Arkansas Project'' came about. I should note that within minutes of discovery of these documents, copies were made and delivered to Senator Hatch's Judiciary Committee office. Finally, the Committee staff made efforts to conduct an interview of Ronald Burr, the former publisher of the American Spectator and a key witness to the events in question. In fact, Mr. Burr was the person at the magazine instrumental in obtaining the grant funds from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Among the anonymous- source documents released by Senator Hatch is a December 2, 1993 letter from Richard M. Scaife to R. Emmett Tyrrell, as President and Chairman of the American Spectator Educational Foundation, stating the ``[t]his grant is in response to Ron Burr's October 13, 1993 letter and various conversations with us.'' In addition, Mr. Burr was the person to whom Mr. Olson sent his February 18, 1994 letter confirming the terms of his representation of the American Spectator and his January 30, 1996 letter confirming his acceptance of a membership on the board of the American Spectator Educational Foundation. Unfortunately, Committee staff were unable to speak to Mr. Burr, despite his willingness to do so because the American Spectator refused to release him from the confidentiality provision in his severance agreement for purposes of Mr. Burr's cooperation with the Committee's inquiry. Contradictions and Discrepancies. Let me describe just a few of the discrepancies in Mr. Olson's evolving statements to this Committee. These are discrepancies that give me pause. First, Mr. Olson has minimized his knowledge of the ``Arkansas Project'' and its activities through word games and definitional ploys. At the hearing, I asked him the direct question: ``Were you involved in the so-called Arkansas Project at any time?'' Mr. Olson responded by saying what he did not do, and with reference to his membership on the Board of Directors: ``As a member of the board of directors of the American Spectator, I became aware of that. It has been alleged that I was somehow involved in that so-called project. I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management. . . . I was on the board of the American Spectator later on when the allegations about the project were simply that it did exist.'' (Tr. at pp. 200-01). Why is there reason to suspect that Mr. Olson's role was not limited to that of a Member of the Board to which a financial audit was provided in 1998? A good deal of the basis is provided by subsequent answers provided by Mr. Olson himself. In April, 2001, his testimony was initially that he was not involved, except as a Member of the Board. Over the past several weeks and several rounds of questions, Mr. Olson has expanded his initial response to admit that he and his firm provided legal services in connection with the matter, that he had discussions in ``social'' settings with those working on ``Arkansas Project'' matters, and that he himself authored articles for the magazine paid for out of Scaife's special ``Arkansas Project'' fund. Compare, for example, Mr. Olson's initial response with his subsequent responses in which he modified his original answer. In his May 9, 2001 letter to me, he stated: ``First, I will address again your questions concerning my involvement in the `Arkansas Project.' My only involvement in what has been characterized as the `Arkansas Project' was in connection with my service to the Foundation as a lawyer and member of its Board of Directors.'' [Underlining added for emphasis.] Mr. Olson initially left out any reference to his role a lawyer. Mr. Olson and his supporters then began to engage in a word game over what the meaning of ``Arkansas Project'' is. His law partner Douglas Cox told the Post that Olson testified that he, ``did not know there was this special fund set up by Scaife to finance this Arkansas fact work.'' That might have explained Mr. Olson's testimony if he had said that at the time he was writing the articles and giving legal advice and talking about these matters with the staff, he had been unaware that those conversations were in connection with what came to be known as the ``Arkansas Project.'' But that is not what Mr. Olson testified. In fact, he admitted that he became aware of the ``Arkansas Project'' at least by 1998, and then changed that testimony to sometime in 1997. He said he was a Member of the Board that received an audit of the Scaife funds. So by 2001, his knowledge of the ``Arkansas Project'' and the funding by Scaife was undeniable. On this particular definitional point, Mr. Olson has minimized his role in and his knowledge of how the Scaife money was spent by the Foundation, even though he was on the board. It strains credulity that he did not know given the size of the Scaife grants--especially when another board member has described briefings to the board on the Arkansas Project and its financing as ``routine.'' [Peter Hannaford, Washington Post, May 15, 2001]. Moreover, board minutes for a meeting on May 19, 1997, which were included in the anonymous-source documents released by Senator Hatch on May 22, indicate that the board--at least at that meeting--discussed a number of financial matters, such as the foundation's equity holdings, operating reserves, employment contracts, and commitments from the Scaife Foundation. (Doc. pp. 44-46). This is certainly not the first occasion that Mr. Olson has played this word game. Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray notes in response to a request from Senator Hatch, that in a memoranda of interview, Mr. Olson acknowledged that ``he may have been asked questions by [names redacted] about things that they were doing in Arkansas, but Olson did not know anything about the ``Arkansas Project'' and ``he was not involved in the direction of funding of that project.'' Mr. Olson was precise in his denial of knowledge and involvement to refer to the term ``Arkansas Project.'' One unnamed person interviewed by the OSR investigation stated, however, that ``the `Arkansas Project' was not a term used by [name redacted] or anyone else at the American Spectator to his knowledge.'' (May 21 Ray Letter, n. 2). But even accepting Mr. Olson's strict definition of the ``Arkansas Project,'' which apparently requires knowledge of the Scaife funding source, rather than the broader use of the term to describe the general activities of Clinton scandal mongering underway at the American Spectator from 1993 through 1998, his involvement was more than he described. On Friday, May 11, 2001, the New York Times reported that Mr. Olson said that when he joined the Board of Directors of the American Spectator the ``Arkansas Project'' was underway and that when he found out about it, he helped shut it down. In fact, Mr. Olson's testimony to the Committee was that he was on the Board, ``when the allegations about the project were simply that it did exist. The publisher at the time, under the supervision of the board of directors, hired a major independent accounting firm to conduct an audit to report to the publisher and therefore to the board of directors with respect to how that money was funded. . . . As a result of that investigation, the magazine, while it felt it had the right to conduct those kind of investigations, decided that it was not in the best interest of the magazine to do so. It ended the project. It established rules to restrict that kind of activity in the future. . . .'' In a subsequent written response, Mr. Olson wrote: ``Neither the report by Mr. [Terry] Eastland nor the Board found anything unlawful about the manner in which funds had been spent, which as I recall, had all been for the purpose of investigating and reporting information of legitimate public interest regarding a high level public official. However, because of the controversy surrounding the matter, and issues regarding whether the journalistic products that resulted had been worth the amount spent, the project was ended and the Board adopted new guidelines to govern investigative journalistic efforts in the future.'' The letter is interesting on these points, but only adds to the questions rather than resolving what in fact happened. Mr. Eastland adds another perspective and indicates a much more active role for Mr. Olson than had previously been acknowledged in representations to the Committee. Mr. Eastland writes that in June, 1997, disagreements arose between the magazine's ``then publisher'' and Richard Larry, the executive director of the Scaife foundations. Mr. Eastland continues: ``At that time, Mr. Tyrrell, who was also chairman of the board, asked Mr. Olson, a board member since 1996, for his assistance in resolving the dispute.'' This role has never previously been acknowledged by Mr. Olson or Mr. Tyrrell. Mr. Eastland then asserts that ``Mr. Olson agreed that a review of the project was necessary.'' He continues: ``Throughout my review, which included an accounting of the monies spent on the project as well as an examination of its management, methods, and results, I had Mr. Olson's strong support.'' So, according to Mr. Eastland, Mr. Olson had a much more extensive role in deciding how the American Spectator would ``resolve'' the dispute, contributed to the decision to conduct a review and played a strong supportive role in the review. If Mr. Olson is now taking credit for finding out about the ``Arkansas Project'' and for shutting it down, as reported by the New York Times on May 11, 2001, that would be a modification of those responses and his initial response that he was not involved in the project, ``in its origin or its management,'' to his later formulation that he did, ``not recall giving any advice concerning the conduct of the `Project' or its origins or management,'' to his later formulation that he was not involved in its, ``inception, organization or ongoing supervision,'' or alternatively, that his, ``only involvement in what has been characterized as the `Arkansas Project' was in connection with my service to the Foundation as a lawyer and member of its Board of Directors.'' Of course, there is much left unsaid by Mr. Eastland on this and other topics. For example, he does not indicate how he came to be the publisher of the American Spectator and replaced Ronald Burr in November 1997 or whether Mr. Olson had a role in his recruitment or in that action of replacing the publisher. In this regard, Mr. Olson did not indicate to the Committee in his submitted responses to our questionnaire that he had been an officer at the American Spectator Educational Foundation. In written follow up questions, I drew his attention to passages in The Hunting of the President (Id.) in which the authors of that published work indicate that Mr. Olson was named an officer of the organization on October 1997. Mr. Olson's response is uncertain and equivocal indicating that he had a, ``vague recollection that [he] served as a temporary secretary for the purpose of that meeting, and perhaps a subsequent one, something that I did not recall at the time I answered the initial written questions.'' Second, evidence uncovered during the Committee's limited bipartisan inquiry following the Committee vote, raises serious question about whether Mr. Olson accurately denied any role in the ``origin'' of the ``Arkansas Project'' by failing to respond correctly to direct questions about a meeting in his law office held in late December, 1993 when this project was getting organized. The anonymous-source documents released by Senator Hatch reveal that following requests by the American Spectator as early as October 13, 1993, Richard M. Scaife on December 2, 1993 ``approved a new grant to The American Spectator Educational Foundation, Inc.'' and forwarded the first installment of the grant. (Doc. p. 19). Thus, by late December 1993, the Scaife funding was in place at the American Spectator to support the activities that would come to be called the ``Arkansas Project.'' With the Scaife funding secured, the OSR Report confirms that Mr. Olson met in his office in late December 1993 with people associated with the American Spectator--Ronald Burr, maybe David Henderson, Stephen Boynton and David Hale. (OSR Report, pp. 78, 82, 90; May 21, Joint Q. 5). ``[A]t least seven individuals were identified as having possibly been in attendance.'' (Id.) Mr. Olson recalled this meeting in 1998 during the OSR investigation, stating that ``in approximately December 1993'' he hosted a meeting in his office, that the meeting was ``about the possibility that he provide counsel to the magazine,'' that David Hale attended this meeting, and that ``the participants may have discussed Hale's need for a `Washington lawyer' to represent him if he was called to testify before any congressional committees.'' (OSR Report, pp. 28, 78). While the description of what discussions may have taken place at this meeting is ``incomplete and inconsistent'' with ``inconsistencies not resolved by the Shaheen investigation'' (May 21 Ray Response to Joint Q. 5), the OSR report contains the following descriptions from other participants in the meeting: ``while Hale may have been a topic of conversation during this meeting, no one requested Olson to represent Hale'' (p. 82); ``[Redacted] recalled meeting with attorneys Theodore Olson and [redacted] to discuss the representation of David Hale, . . .'' (P. 90). Mr. Ray has identified these references likely to be to the same December 1993 meeting. (May 21 Ray Response to Joint Qs. 5, 7, 9). In addition to these limited descriptions in the OSR Report, Independent Counsel Ray reviewed the underlying memoranda of interviews of three participants in the December 1993 meeting in Mr. Olson's office and summarized their statements in a May 21 letter responding to a question sent unilaterally by Senator Hatch. According to Mr. Ray, whose cooperation during this bipartisan inquiry has been exemplary and helpful, Mr. Olson admitted that at this meeting David Hale's need for counsel was discussed and that this meeting was ``the commencement of [my] relationship with the American Spectator magazine'' but he declined to describe the substance of that discussion, claiming the attorney/client privilege.'' (Id., p. 2). It is difficult to see, however, how the meeting could be covered by attorney/client privilege when David Hale, who had no formal affiliation with the Spectator, was present. One unnamed participant confirms part of Mr. Olson's recollection, stating, ``the purpose of the meeting was to get Olson to represent Hale.'' Another unnamed participant appears to confirm the other part of Mr. Olson's recollection regarding the second purpose of the meeting about American Spectator activities, stating: ``The subject of this meeting was Bill and Hillary Clinton and the need for the Spectator to investigate and report on numerous alleged Clinton scandals.'' (Emphasis supplied). Having seen the OSR Report and a statement submitted by Michael Horowitz, I am led to wonder whether the account of a late 1993 or early 1994 meeting in the Washington law office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attended by David Henderson, Steve Boynton, John Mintz, Ronald Burr, Ted Olson and Michael Horowitz in The Hunting of the President (J. Conason & G. Lyons, 2000) is more accurate than we have been led to believe by Mr. Olson. At his hearing, I had asked Mr. Olson whether there had been any meetings of the ``Arkansas project'' in his office and he responded without reservation: ``No, there were none.'' I followed up with a written question asking in particular about the time frame of 1993 and 1994, and Mr. Olson answered that he was, ``not aware of any meeting organizing, planning or implementing the `Arkansas Project' in my law firm in 1993 or 1994.'' I then followed up by drawing his attention to a passage out of The Hunting of the President (Id.) in which the authors of that book wrote that a meeting did take place at which the topic was using Scaife funds and the American Spectator to, ``mount a series of probes into the Clintons and their alleged crimes in Arkansas.'' in response to that written question, Mr. Olson was less assertive and categorical. He did not deny that a meeting took place but disputed the characterization of the topic of the meeting. Hedging his testimony, he noted that he did, ``not recall the meeting described.'' With respect to Mr. Olson's initial categorical denial of meeting at Gibson Dunn's offices, in response to another written follow up question derived from a passage in The Hunting of the President (Id.), I asked whether there had, in fact been meetings not only in 1993 and 1994 but also in July 1997 at the offices of Mr. Olson's law firm to discuss allegations that money for the ``Arkansas Project'' had been misallocated. Confronted with the specific reference to the public record, Mr. Olson modified his earlier categorical denial by conceding: ``I do recall meetings, which I now realize must have been in the summer of 1997 in my office regarding allegations regarding what became known as the `Arkansas Project' and questions concerning whether expenditures involved in that project had been properly documented.'' Third, Mr. Olson has apparently down-played his involvement in the development and direction of ``Arkansas Project'' stories, perhaps to avoid any inconsistency with his initial representation to the Committee that he was not involved in the management of this project. Yet, according to a published report in the Washington Post on May 10, 2001, the report to which Senator Hatch referred when he indicated that ``legitimate questions'' had been raised, David Brock told Post reporters that ``Olson attended a number of dinner meetings at the home of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., president and chairman of the Spectator, which were explicitly `brainstorming' sessions about the Arkansas Project.'' While Mr. Olson refused to respond to this allegation, his law partner, Douglas Cox, who worked on the Spectator account, conceded that Olson attended such dinners, but that ``did not mean that he was aware of the scope of the `Arkansas Project' and the Scaife funding.'' David Brock has also indicated that Mr. Olson was ``directly involved in the Arkansas Project, participating in discussions about possible stories and advising the magazine whether to publish one of its most controversial stories, about the death of Clinton White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster.'' Washington Post, May 11, 2001. According to the account in the Post, Mr. Olson told Mr. Brock that, ``while he didn't place any stock in the piece, it was worth publishing because the role of the Spectator was to write Clinton scandal stories in hopes of `shaking scandals loose.' '' In his response to Senator Hatch, Mr. Olson did not deny Mr. Brock's account head on. Instead, he wrote that he told Mr. Brock that the article did not appear to be libelous or to raise any legal issues that would preclude its publication, and that he was not going to tell the editor-in-chief what should appear in the magazine. The Washington Post also reported that both R. Emmett Tyrrell and Wladyslaw Pleszczynski said that project story ideas, legal issues involving the stories, and other directly related matters were discussed with Mr. Olson by staff members and at dinner parties of Spectator staff and board members. The reaction from Mr. Olson's supporters was swift. On May 15, 2001, Senator Hatch shared with us a letter he obtained from Messrs. Tyrrell and Pleszczynski denying the specific words in the Post story but not denying that they talked to the Post reporters. Indeed, the Post story quotes Mr. Tyrrell, a quote he does not disavow, as saying he did not recall, but it was a possibility that he talked to Ted Olson about the stories about the Clintons. ``I would say it was a possibility, just as it was a possibility that Roosevelt would have discussed Pearl Harbor on December 8 with his secretary of state.'' Tyrrell and Pleszczynski also say that Mr. Olson's carefully worded disclaimer was technically accurate as far as it went. In a blatant effort to undermine Mr. Brock's powerful, first-hand recollection of Mr. Olson's participation in and contributions to the activities of the ``Arkansas Project,'' Mr. Tyrrell also submitted a statement that Mr. Brock was not a part of the ``Arkansas Project.'' Mr. Brock, in reply, submitted strong contradictory evidence to the Tyrrell statement and supplied the committee with multiple Arkansas Project expense reports which remain unrefuted and which Mr. Brock states, ``clearly show that I was reimbursed thousands of dollars by the Project for travel, office supplies, postage, and the like.'' Over the course of the past few weeks, Mr. Olson has downplayed any significance of discussions in social settings about the stories that were the product of the ``Arkansas Project.'' In his May 9, 2001, letter, Mr. Olson acknowledged: ``Your previous questions asked about contacts that I may have had with people involved in the project. My answer was and is that I had dealings with the editors of the magazine and some of its reporters and staff, some social, some in connection with legal work. This was during a time when those persons were involved in one form or another with the investigative journalistic efforts which the magazine was contemporaneously pursuing. I was, of course, aware, along with the public generally, that the magazine was writing articles about the Clintons, but I did not know that there was a special source of funding for these efforts.'' In his May 14, 2001, letter to Senator Hatch, he writes: ``It was also true that in social settings, the magazine's editorial staff and writers spoke of the articles that they were involved in writing and publishing. I was among scores of people from time to time included in such social events, but nothing about these social discussions involved organizing, supervising or managing the project--they were simply discussions of subjects of contemporaneous interest to the magazine's editors and writers.'' Yet, taken as a whole, Mr. Olson was clearly involved and participated both professionally and socially in the work of the American Spectator and its ``Arkansas Project.'' There is absolutely nothing illegal about this involvement and participation, but it shows a larger role in these activities than Mr. Olson initially portrayed. Fourth, Mr. Olson minimized his role in the ``Arkansas Project'' and the American Spectator by failing to give complete information about the amount of remuneration he has received for his activities on their behalf when he was first asked. He told us on April 19 that he was paid from $500 to $1,000 for his articles that appeared in the American Spectator magazine. Yet, we find out in the Washington Post on May 10 that his firm was paid over $8,000 for work that was used in just one of those articles. In addition, the Post reported that over $14,000 was paid to Mr. Olson's law firm and attributed by American Spectator to the ``Arkansas Project.'' When he was asked during his hearing about an article he had coauthored that was published under the pseudonym ``Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short'' in the American Spectator magazine he did not indicate that ``the magazine hired [his] firm to prepare'' such materials and to perform legal research on the theoretical criminal exposure of the President and Mrs. Clinton based on press accounts of their conduct. I, for one, thought Mr. Olson had defended his writings as matters of personal First Amendment political expression. I had no idea from his testimony at his confirmation hearing that this article was part of his and his firm's ongoing legal representation of American Spectator Educational Foundation, that it was a commissioned piece of legal writing, paid for by a grant from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. I am now left to wonder whether his article that was so critical of the Attorney General and the Justice Department was as he described them at his hearing the ``statements of a private citizen,'' or another richly paid for political tract. Mr. Tyrrell and Mr. Pleszcynski do not deny that Mr. Olson was paid for the chart speculating on the Clintons' potential criminal exposure. Instead, they merely repeat the mantra that even if he was paid with ``Arkansas Project'' funds, Mr. Olson would not have known that. What they leave out is a necessary qualifier, ``at the time he received the payment.'' They and Mr. Olson became privy to the internal audit of the ``Arkansas Project'' by 1998. That audit and his knowledge as a Board Member of the extent of the ``Arkansas Project'' it revealed render Mr. Olson's testimony in April, 2001, less than complete. I have inquired of Mr. Olson what his and his firm's legal representation of the American Spectator entailed. In response he has been extremely general, vague and unspecific and, at times, has cloaked his nonresponsiveness in allusions to the attorney-client privilege. In fact, his law partner, Douglas Cox, has acknowledged that he and Mr. Olson worked on legal matters for the American Spectator, including legal research that was incorporated into the article that was published in 1994 in the American Spectator, under a fictitious name, that argues that the President was facing up to 178 years in prison and Mrs. Clinton had a criminal exposure of 47 years in prison. He then proceeds to undercut any claim of attorney-client privilege for these activities by indicating that they did not rely on any communications with anyone at American Spectator. Having now conceded his involvement in these matters, something he did not do initially, the question arises: how extensive was that involvement as a lawyer? That is why I asked at least for production of his firm's billing records for legal services rendered to the American Spectator, but was stonewalled on that request. Mr. Olson asserted attorney-client privilege; he did not offer to cooperate by producing non-privileged copies of those records. (April 25 Response, Q.4; May 9 Response, p. 3). Such records have been produced in connection with other government inquiries. As part of the bipartisan inquiry undertaken after the Committee vote on this nomination, we became aware of this fact. The May 28, 1999 transmittal letter for the December 9, 1998 OSR Report indicates that request were made to Mr. Olson and his law firm, Bigson Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C) for billing records for any client that had received Scaife foundation grants between 1992-1998 in order to ascertain whether there had ``been an indirect method to compensate GD&C for its unpaid representation of Hale.'' Just as here, GD&C initially invoked attorney-client privilege but ultimately non-privileged billing records for Mr. Olson's and GD&C's representation of both David Hale and the American Spectator were produced. (May 21 Ray Response to Joint A. 1). However, the independent counsel was unable to forward those records in response to the bipartisan, joint request for them from Senator Hatch and myself. Accordingly, Senator Hatch and I then sent a joint request to Mr. Olson's firm requesting information about the total amount of fees paid by the American Spectator to the firm. On May 24, Mr. Cox informed us by letter that the amount paid over the course of five and one-half years for legal services performed is $94,405. That is a far different number than the $500 to $1,000 per article the Committee was first told by Mr. Olson. Fifth, Mr. Olson has tried to distance himself from the most controversial aspects of the ``Arkansas Project'' in its activities to publicize allegations of wrongdoing about the Clintons in Arkansas. Mr. Olson stated that he ``represented the American Spectator in the performance of legal services from time to time beginning in 1994 . . . those legal services were not for the purpose of conducting or assisting in the conduct of investigations of the Clintons.'' (April 25th Responses, Q. 4). Yet, we find out he was paid over $8,000 to prepare a chart outlining the Clintons' criminal exposure as research for a February 1994 article Mr. Olson co-authored against the Clintons entitled, `Criminal laws Implicated by the Clinton Scandals: A partial list.' Finally, Mr. Olson has testified he simply does not recall who contacted him to represent David Hale. When I asked Mr. Olson at his April 5 hearing how he came to represent Mr. Hale he started by saying, ``[t]wo of [Hale's] then lawyers contacted me and asked . . . .'' A few seconds later Mr. Olson said, ``[o]ne of his lawyers contacted me--I can't recall the man's name--and asked whether I would be available to represent Mr. Hale in connection with that subpoena here in Washington, D.C. They felt that they needed Washington counsel with some experience dealing with a congressional investigation. I did agree to do that. Mr. Hale and I met together.'' Even in his May 9 letter, Mr. Olson asserts that he, ``cannot recall when [he] was first contacted about the possibility of representing Mr. Hale.'' He indicates that he believes, ``that [he] was contacted by a person or persons whose identities [he] cannot presently recall sometime before then regarding whether I might be willing to represent Mr. Hale if he needed representation in Washington. As I recall, I indicated at the time that I might be able to do so, but only in connection with a potential congressional subpoena, not with respect to legal matters pending in Arkansas. . . . I believe that this meeting was inconclusive because Mr. Hale did not at that time need representation in Washington.'' The Washington Post reported that David Henderson said that he introduced Hale to Olson when Hale came to Washington to find a lawyer who could help him deal with a subpoena from the Senate Whitewater committee, and sat in on a meeting between the two men. Interestingly, David Henderson apparently signed a statement on May 14 indicating that in his view he broke no law while implementing the ``Arkansas Project.'' What he does not say and what he does not deny is that he was the person who introduced David Hale to Mr. Olson. The role that David Henderson played in introducing David Hale to Mr. Olson is apparently corroborated by several other witnesses who have spoken to the American Prospect in a story released on May 24. It now strikes me as strange that a man as capable as Mr. Olson with his vast abilities of recall could not remember the name of David Henderson, if Mr. Henderson was, in fact, involved in setting up that representation. It strikes me as doubly strange when the bipartisan inquiry conducted after the Committee vote on this nomination uncovered evidence that Mr. Olson was able to recall who introduced him to David Hale just a couple of years ago when asked the same question. The OSR Report indicates that in 1998 Mr. Olson recalled who referred David Hale to him for legal representation, stating: ``Hale became a client of Olson's firm around November 1995. Olson believes that Hale may have been referred to him by [redacted].'' (OSR Report, p. 79). It leads one to wonder whether Mr. Olson's failure to recall the name David Henderson had something to do with his not wanting to indicate the connection to such a central figure in the ``Arkansas Project.'' Indeed, it has been reported that when Mr. Olson became a Member of the Board of Directors of the American Spectator his January 1996 letter accepting the position was addressed to the publisher Ronald Burr with copies sent to Messrs. Tyrrell and Henderson. Mr. Henderson says in his recent statement that he served for a while on the Spectator Board. But why was he, in particular, sent a copy? One explanation is that Mr. Olson has a selective memory and that he did not recall Mr. Henderson as the person who contacted him to represent David Hale because that would simply be another tie to the ``Arkansas Project.'' But we may never know for sure. On this point regarding how Mr. Olson came to represent Mr. Hale, and Mr. Olson's testimony to the Committee about it, Michael J. Horowitz submitted a statement that says that he, Mr. Horowitz, ``attended one meeting in Mr. Olson's presence at which the matter discussed was legal representation for David Hale, who was facing Congressional testimony and was in need of distinguished Washington counsel. At that meeting-- at which no mention I know of was made of the `Arkansas Project' or any term like it--the subject under discussion was whether Mr. Olson's firm would serve as counsel to Mr. Hale.'' It is entirely unclear in what capacity Mr. Horowitz was attending such a meeting, but it may not have been quite as simple as one or two lawyers then representing Mr. Hale approaching a high profile Washington lawyer and his instantaneous agreement to accept the representation for a client without a retainer and without much prospect of being paid after. According to Mr. Olson, he and Mr. Hale ``met together'' and Mr. Hale agreed to pay [Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's] fees.'' In the end, Mr. Hale could not pay the $140,000 in legal fees he owned Mr. Olson. Fitness to be Solicitor General. Some have said, why is this important? Does this matter whether he accurately and fully described his role in the American Spectator and the ``Arkansas Project''? It is important for two reasons, both of which go to the core of the fitness of the nominee to serve as Solicitor General. The principle question raised by the nomination of Mr. Olson to this particular position is whether his partisanship over the last several years in connection with so many far reaching anti-Clinton efforts mark Mr. Olson as a thoroughgoing partisan who will not be able to check his partisan political instincts at the door to the Office of the Solicitor General. Similar questions were raised by the nomination of Michael Chertoff. In that case the questions were answered and the doubts dissipated. In connection with the Olson nomination, those doubts have grown over time. Had Mr. Olson conceded the extent of his involvement in anti-Clinton activities and given the kinds of assurances that Mr. Chertoff did about his upcoming responsibilities, I would be supporting his confirmation. Indeed, when I met with Mr. Olson and at his hearing, I hoped and expected that to be my position. I expected to be able to give him the benefit of the doubt and, in light of the deference I would normally accord a President's Executive Branch nominees, I fully expected to be voting for this nomination. In the wake of the hearing, the series of supplemental responses we have received and the unanswered questions now in the public record about Mr. Olson's involvement in partisan activities like the ``Arkansas Project,'' I still have my doubts. Second is the question of candor and straightforwardness. I have not had the sense from his hearing onward that Mr. Olson has been truly forthcoming with me or with the Committee. My sense is that for some reason he chose from the outset to try to minimize his role in connection with the activities of the American Spectator, that he has sought to characterize it in the most favorable possible light, that he has sought to conclude for us rather than provide us with the facts and let us conclude how to view his activities. I will cite another example of nonresponsiveness from the record. I asked Mr. Olson in light of his testimony at the hearing that he was not involved in the origins or management of the `Arkansas Project': ``Were you involved in advising anyone who was involved in the origins or management of the project? If so, what advice did you provide? Were you at meetings or social events with anyone involved in the project as an originator, manager, reporter, or source for the project? If so, what role did you play at these meetings or social events?'' Mr. Olson's response was, as follows: ``I did not realize that a Project of any sort was underway except to the extent that I have indicated. I was in contact at social events with reporters for the magazine and members of the editorial staff, individuals whom I regard as personal friends. I have been at countless social events at which one or more of such persons may have been present. I have not kept records of such meetings, or the nature of the conversations that may have occurred at such meetings that might have involved President Clinton or his contemporaneous or past conduct. I was not playing any particular role at those social events, except that I was probably a host of events at which persons who wrote for or performed editorial services for the American Spectator may have been present. To the extent that it is relevant to your inquiry, I was the best man at the wedding of the editor-in-chief of the American Spectator. I recall that he was also present at my wedding. He is a personal friend and we have had numerous social meetings. He has written at least two books about former President Clinton. I do not interpret your inquiry as asking for the substance of conversations at social events. And I do not recall giving any advice concerning the conduct of the `Project' or its origins or management. Literally true? Probably. Responsive? Hardly. At the time of his hearing and his answer, Mr. Olson was well aware of the activities of the ``Arkansas Project,'' which was operated by the organization for which he acted as lawyer, author and contributor, Board Member and officer. He had been presented with an audit and played a pivotal role in reviewing the examination of its management, methods and results, according to Mr. Eastland. His answer, however, steers clear of perjury without responding to the concerns being raised. It relies on a lack of recollection and is an attempt at distraction. Conclusion. As I review this record and the initial nonresponsiveness, lack of recall, corrections when confronted with specifics, I am left to wonder what happened to ``absolute candor and fair dealing.'' In concluding my May 4, 2001, letter to Mr. Olson I noted: ``The credibility of the person appointed to be the Solicitor General is of paramount importance. When arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States Government, the Solicitor General is expected to come forward with both the strengths and weaknesses of the case, to inform the Court of things it might not otherwise know, and to be honest in all his or her dealings with the Court. I expect that same responsiveness and cooperation from nominees before this Committee.'' My expectations have been disappointed. I understand the role of a lawyer-advocate in our legal system, and I did not intend to oppose this nomination merely because of Mr. Olson's clients and his clients' activities. If confirmed, however, Mr. Olson's next client will be the United States of America--and all of us. I want to be sure that our nation's top lawyer will see the truth and speak the truth fully to the Supreme Court and represent all of our best interests in the weighty matters over which the Solicitor General exercises public authority. Based upon what I have seen I do not have the requisite confidence in Mr. Olson to be able to support his nomination. I will vote no. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for anybody who wants to speak, following the normal unofficial procedure, as people are available, we can go back and forth, side to side. I note that I have no objection to proceeding to the motion to discharge the nomination of Ted Olson to be Solicitor General. I mention this because I want Senators to understand. We had a divided vote in the committee, and with a divided vote in the committee, because of the procedures of the Senate, I am sure we could have either bottled it up for some time in committee or for some time here. I do not want to do that. I think there should be a vote one way or the other. We have had too many examples in the past few years of nominations being bottled up that way. On this one, I have concerns about Mr. Olson, but I am agreeable to having a vote up or down on his nomination. In fact, I say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that we also have before us the nominations of Mr. Dinh to be head of the Office of Policy Development of the Justice Department and Mr. Chertoff to be head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division. I am perfectly agreeable to rollcall votes on them, too, and will, to notify Senators, vote for them as I did in committee. Of course, that is something that has to be scheduled.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. If I can have the chairman's attention just for a moment, I assume we are not looking for specific times and speakers on this matter but will go back and forth in the usual fashion as people arrive. Is that agreeable?

Mr. LEAHY. I want to have a vote on all three of these. I realize that is entirely up to the body. I am perfectly willing to have votes on all three of them. I point out, with respect to Mr. Dinh and Mr. Chertoff, I voted for them in committee, even though, as everybody knows, they are very conservative Republicans and were heavily involved in a congressional investigation of the former President and of matters in Arkansas.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the compliment. Mr. Dinh and Mr. Chertoff were heavily involved in what I thought was a misguided investigation, not by them but by Members of Congress who conducted it against former President Clinton and others in Arkansas. However, I believe they followed the directions of Members of Congress, many of whom are no longer here, for a number of reasons. I will vote for them and urge their confirmation when the time comes. I mention this because there seems to be some in the public, some among what I call the more conservative editorialists, who think there is going to be some kind of payback on the Democrats' part for the number of nominees who were held up during the Clinton administration by the Republican majority. I think it makes far more sense to look at nominations one by one on the merits. There is no question if the roles were reversed, if somebody of Mr. Dinh's and Mr. Chertoff's background had been appointed by the last administration following their investigations of Republican Presidents and my understanding and what I have seen in the last few years, they would have been held up. I do not believe in doing that. I told Attorney General Ashcroft--in fact, I told him earlier today-- we intend to move these forward. We are moving forward most of the nominations in the Department of Justice a lot faster than they were 4 years ago in the Clinton administration by the same Senate but under different control. I hope this may be an indication that things will move forward on their merits and not on partisanship. I urge all Senators who wish to debate to come to the floor without delay and participate. After the motion to discharge and proceed to the nomination, I expect the Senate will proceed to vote promptly on the Olson nomination. I know Senator Lott and Senator Daschle have been working toward that goal. I agree with them on it. I will, however, express, as every Senator has a right to express his or her feelings towards or against each of these three nomination nominees, why I will vote against Ted Olson. The Solicitor General fills a unique position in our Government. The Solicitor General is not merely another legal advocate whose mission is to advance the narrow interests of a client or merely another advocate of the President's policies. The President has people appointed on his staff or in his Cabinet to advance his policies. That is absolutely right. That is the way it should be. Whoever is President should have somebody who can advance his positions no matter whether they are partisan or not, and there are positions provided--in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of positions are provided to the President to do that. The Solicitor General is different. The Solicitor General is not there to advance the partisan position of anybody, including somebody who is President. The Solicitor General is there to advance the interests of the United States of America, of all of us--Republican, Democrat, or Independent. The Solicitor General must use his or her legal skills and judgments to higher purposes on behalf of the laws and the rights of all the people of the United States. The Solicitor General does not advance a Republican or Democratic or Independent position. The Solicitor General advances the positions of the United States of America. In fact, at his hearing, Mr. Olson acknowledged--and I will use his words: The Solicitor General holds a unique position in our government in that he has important responsibilities to all three branches of our government. . . . And he is considered an officer of the Supreme Court in that he regularly and with scrupulous honesty must present to the Court arguments that are carefully considered and mindful of the Court's role, duty, and limited resources. As the most consistent advocate before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General and the lawyers in that office have a special obligation to inform the Court honestly and openly. The Solicitor General must be an advocate, but he must take special care that the positions he advances before the Court are fairly presented. As Professor Drew Days said to this committee during his confirmation hearing 8 years ago, the Solicitor General has a duty towards the Supreme Court of ``Absolute candor and fair dealing.'' Those words of Ted Olson's are words that I totally agree with. He has stated the position of the Solicitor General. He has stated it accurately. We must look at his record to see, having talked the talk, whether he walked the walk. The Senate must carefully review nominations to the position of Solicitor General to ensure the highest levels of independence and integrity, as well as legal skills. Indeed, the Solicitor General is the only government official who must be, according to the statute, ``learned in the law.'' We appoint a lot of people, we confirm a lot of people, but nothing in the law says they have to be ``learned in the law,'' but for the Solicitor General it says that. The Solicitor General must argue with intellectual honesty before the Supreme Court and represent the interests of the Government and the American people for the long term, and not just with an eye to short-term political gain. The Senate must determine whether a nominee to the position of Solicitor General understands and is suited to this extraordinary role. It is with the importance of this position in mind that I approached the nomination of Ted Olson to serve as Solicitor General of the United States. From my initial meeting with him in advance of the April 5, 2001, hearing and thereafter, I have been assessing this nomination against the responsibilities of that important office. At the outset, I raised with Mr. Olson my concern that his sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind. After review of his testimony both orally and in answers to written questions, I have become doubly concerned that Mr. Olson has not shown a willingness or ability to be sufficiently candid and forthcoming with the Senate so that I would have confidence in his abilities to carry out the responsibilities of the Solicitor General and be the voice of the United States before the United States Supreme Court. In addition, I am concerned about other matters in his background. I will lay out in a much more lengthy statement for the Record, my concerns, but let me talk more briefly now about my concerns about Mr. Olson's candor before the committee about his involvement with the American Spectator and the Arkansas Project. His initial responses to my questions at his hearing prompted concern that the committee might not have heard a candid and complete accounting from Mr. Olson. Rather than respond directly and say all that he did do in connection with those matters, Mr. Olson chose to respond by misdirection and say what he did not do. Frankly, in this case, and under the questions he was asked, there is a world of difference between what he did not do and what he did do. He initially described his role as extremely limited as a member of the board of directors of the American Spectator Educational Foundation and implied that he was involved only after the fact, when that board conducted a financial audit and terminated the Arkansas Project activities in 1998. Mr. Olson has modified his answers over time, his recollection has changed, and he has conceded additional knowledge and involvement. His initial minimizing of his role appears not to be consistent with the whole story. Because his responses over time left significant questions and because of press accounts that contradicted the minimized role to which he initially admitted, I wanted to work with Senator Hatch before the Judiciary Committee voted on this nomination to have the committee perform the bipartisan factual inquiry needed to set forth the facts and resolve all questions and concerns about Mr. Olson's answers. I wanted to have us do the bipartisan fact finding that we always do when such issues come up. Indeed, Senator Hatch postponed one committee vote on Mr. Olson's nomination on May 10 and admitted that ``some legitimate questions'' have arisen and that ``legitimate issues'' were involved. He said that after an article in the Washington Post indicated that Mr. Olson's role at American Spectator and the activities of the Arkansas Project were more than just as a member of the board of directors in 1998 to which a financial audit was provided. My friend from Utah did not agree to that limited inquiry before the committee voted on Mr. Olson's nomination, but with the constructive assistance of the leaders and their staff, we were able to make progress over the last week. Let me describe just a few of the discrepancies in Mr. Olson's evolving statements to this committee. These are discrepancies that give me pause. First, Mr. Olson has minimized his knowledge of the Arkansas Project and its activities through--well, word games and definitional ploys. At the hearing, I asked him the direct question: ``Were you involved in the so-called Arkansas Project at any time?'' Mr. Olson responded by saying what he did not do, and with reference to his membership on the board of directors: As a member of the board of directors of the American Spectator, I became aware of that. It has been alleged that I was somehow involved in that so-called project. I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management. . . . I was on the board of the American Spectator later on when the allegations about the project were simply that it did exist. A carefully crafted answer, like somebody spoiling or somebody maneuvering a kayak through the rocks in a whitewater rapids. Over the past several weeks and several rounds of questions, Mr. Olson has expanded his initial response to admit that he and his firm provided legal services in connection with the matter, that he had discussions in social settings with those working on Arkansas Project matters, and that he himself authored articles for the magazine paid for out of Scaife's special Arkansas Project fund. Mr. Olson and his supporters then began to engage in a word game over what the meaning of ``Arkansas Project'' is. His law partner Douglas Cox told the Post that Olson testified that he, ``did not know there was this special fund set up by Scaife to finance this Arkansas fact work.'' That might have explained Mr. Olson's testimony if he had said that at the time he was writing the articles and giving legal advice and talking about these matters with the staff, he had been unaware that those conversations were in connection with what came to be known as the Arkansas Project. In other words, writing and giving legal advice and talking about it, he didn't know what it was for. I think he is far too good a lawyer for that. But that is not what Mr. Olson testified. In fact, he admitted that he became aware of the Arkansas Project at least by 1998, and then changed that testimony to sometime in 1997. He said he was a member of the board that received an audit of the Scaife funds. So by 2001, his knowledge of the Arkansas Project and the funding by Scaife was undeniable. Second, evidence uncovered during the committee's limited bipartisan inquiry following the committee vote, raises serious question about whether Mr. Olson accurately denied any role in the ``origin'' of the Arkansas Project by failing to respond correctly to direct questions about a meeting in his law office held in late December, 1993 when this project was getting organized. Not in 2001 but 1993. Third, Mr. Olson has apparently downplayed his involvement in the development and direction of Arkansas Project stories, perhaps to avoid any inconsistency with his initial representation to the committee that he was not involved in the management of this project. According to a published report in the Washington Post on May 20, 2001, the report to which Senator Hatch referred when he indicated that ``legitimate questions'' had been raised, David Brock told Post reporters that ``Olson attended a number of dinner meetings at the home of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., president and chairman of the Spectator, which were explicitly brainstorming sessions about the Arkansas Project. While Mr. Olson refused to respond to this allegation, his law partner, Douglas Cox, who worked on the Spectator account, conceded that Olson attended such dinners, but that ``did not mean that he was aware of the scope of the Arkansas Project and the Scaife funding.'' David Brock has also indicated that Mr. Olson was ``directly involved in the Arkansas Project, participating in discussions about possible stories and advising the magazine whether to publish one of its most controversial stories, about the death of Clinton White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster.'' According to the account in the Post, Mr. Olson told Mr. Brock that, ``while he didn't place any stock in the piece, it was worth publishing because the role of the Spectator was to write Clinton scandal stories in hopes of `shaking scandals loose.' '' That is an interesting position for a lawyer to take: Print a story you know not to be true, hoping that by printing untruths you will somehow bring forward truths. That is not what I was taught in law school, certainly not in our legal ethics courses. In his response to Senator Hatch, Mr. Olson did not deny Mr. Brock's account head on. Instead, he wrote that he told Mr. Brock that the article did not appear to be libelous or to raise any legal issues that would preclude its publication, and that he was not going to tell the editor-in-chief what should appear in the magazine. The Washington Post also reported that others said that project story ideas, legal issues involving the stories, and other directly related matters were discussed with Mr. Olson by staff members and at dinner parties of Spectator staff and board members. The reaction from Mr. Olson's supporters was swift. On May 15, 2001, Chairman Hatch shared with the committee a letter he obtained from the two men quoted denying the specific words in the Post story but not denying that they talked to the Post reporters. In a blatant effort to undermine Mr. Brock's powerful, first hand recollection of Mr. Olson's participation in and contributions to the activities of the Arkansas Project, Mr. Tyrrell also submitted a statement that Mr. Brock was not a part of the Arkansas Project. Mr. Brock, in reply, submitted strong contradictory evidence to the Tyrrell statement and supplied the committee with multiple Arkansas Project expense reports, expense reports, I might note, which remain unrefuted and which Mr. Brock states, ``clearly show that I was reimbursed thousands of dollars by the Project for travel, office supplies, postage, and the like.'' Taken as a whole, Mr. Olson was clearly involved and participating both professionally and socially in the work of the American Spectator and its Arkansas Project. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this involvement and participation, which makes me wonder, why not be forthcoming and honest about it? But it shows a larger role in these activities than Mr. Olson initially portrayed. Mr. Olson also minimized his role in the Arkansas Project and the American Spectator by failing to give complete information about the amount of remuneration he has received for his activities on their behalf when he was first asked. He told us on April 19 that he was paid from $500 to $1,000 for his articles that appeared in the American Spectator magazine. Yet, we find out in the Washington Post on May 10 that his firm was paid over $8,000 for work that was used in just one of those articles. In addition, the Post reported that over $14,000 was paid to Mr. Olson's law firm and attributed to the Arkansas Project. When he was asked during his hearing about an article he had coauthored that was published under the pseudonym--I want to make sure I get this right--``Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short'' in the magazine he did not indicate that ``the magazine hired [his] firm to prepare'' such materials and to perform legal research on the theoretical criminal exposure of the President and Mrs. Clinton based on press accounts of their conduct. I, for one, thought Mr. Olson had defended his writings as matters of personal first amendment political expression, an absolute right that he and all of us have. Certainly, I had no idea from his testimony at his confirmation hearing that this article was part of his and his firm's ongoing legal representation of American Spectator Educational Foundation, that it was a commissioned piece of legal writing, paid for by a grant from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. I am now left to wonder whether his article that was so critical of the Attorney General and the Justice Department was as he described them at his hearing the ``statements of a private citizen,'' or another richly paid for political tract. Again, he, like all of us, can write any kind of a political tract he wants. He, like all of us, can make statements critical of anybody he wants. He can even make outlandish charges. But let's be honest about what we have done when testifying under oath before the Judiciary Committee. His supporters repeat the mantra that even if he was paid with Arkansas Project funds, Mr. Olson would not have known that. What they leave out is a necessary qualifier ``at the time he received the payment.'' By the time he came to the committee and testified, in answer to direct questions, he had become privy to the internal audit of the Arkansas Project. In fact, he says he became privy to that 3 years ago in 1998. That audit and his knowledge as a board member of the extent of the Arkansas Project that it revealed rendered Mr. Olson's testimony in April, 2001, less than complete. Having now conceded his involvement in these matters, something he did not do initially, the question arises: How extensive was that involvement as a lawyer? That is why I asked at least for production of his firm's billing records for legal services rendered to the American Spectator, but I was stonewalled on that request. Mr. Olson asserted attorney-client privilege; but he did not offer to cooperate by producing nonprivileged copies of those records. Every lawyer in this place knows what is privileged and what is not, what falls under attorney-client privilege and what does not. And he did not even want to produce those things that clearly fall outside the attorney-client privilege. In fact, such nonprivileged records have been produced in connection with other Government inquiries. Certainly in the last 6 years, documents have been produced by the bushel to the same Judiciary Committee during other investigations. As part of the bipartisan inquiry undertaken after the committee vote on this nomination, we became aware of this fact. The independent counsel review and report we were able to read--that was only a small part of it--indicates that requests were made to Mr. Olson and his law firm for billing records for any client that had received Scaife foundation grants between 1992 and 1998 in order to ascertain whether there had ``been an indirect method to compensate (the law firm) for its unpaid representation of Hale.'' That would be David Hale. Just as here, Mr. Olson's law firm initially invoked attorney-client privilege but realized that ultimately they had to give what were nonprivileged billing records for Mr. Olson. And they showed Mr. Olson's representation of both David Hale and the American Spectator. But the independent counsel was unable to forward those records in response to the bipartisan, joint request for them by Senator Hatch and myself. So Senator Hatch and I then sent a joint request to Mr. Olson's firm requesting information about the total amount of fees paid by the American Spectator to the firm. Remember, the implication was there really was not anything there. Today, we were informed that the amount paid was not $500 to $1,000 per article the committee was first told by Mr. Olson. Instead, it was for legal services performed $94,405. I am not a bookkeeper. I was a middling math student. But like most Vermonters, I can count. There is quite a bit of difference between $500 to $1,000 and $94,405. Mr. Olson has tried to distance himself from the most controversial aspects of the Arkansas Project in its activities to publicize allegations of wrongdoing about the Clintons in Arkansas. Mr. Olson stated that he ``represented the American Spectator in the performance of legal services from time to time beginning in 1994 * * * those legal services were not for the purpose of conducting or assisting in the conduct of investigations of the Clintons.'' Yet, we find out he was paid over $8,000 to prepare a chart outlining the Clintons' criminal exposure as research for a February 1994 article Mr. Olson co-authored against the Clintons entitled, ``Criminal laws Implicated by the Clinton Scandals: A partial list.'' Finally, Mr. Olson has testified he simply does not recall who contacted him to represent David Hale. This is a man who has as sharp a mind as just about anybody I have met around here, but he does not recall who contacted him to represent David Hale, a central part of this whole inquiry. So when I asked Mr. Olson at his April 5 hearing how he came to represent Mr. Hale he started by saying, ``[t]wo of [Hale's] then lawyers contacted me and asked . . .'' A few seconds later Mr. Olson said: [o]ne of his lawyers contacted me--I can't recall the man's name--and asked whether I would be available to represent Mr. Hale in connection with that subpoena here in Washington, D.C. They felt that they needed Washington counsel with some experience dealing with a congressional investigation. I did agree to do that. Mr. Hale and I met together. Even in his May 9 letter, Mr. Olson asserts that he, ``cannot recall when [he] was first contacted about the possibility of representing Mr. Hale.'' He indicates that he believes, ``that [he] was contacted by a person or persons whose identities [he] cannot presently recall sometime before then regarding whether I might be willing to represent Mr. Hale if he needed representation in Washington.'' The Washington Post reported that David Henderson said that he introduced Hale to Olson. Interestingly, David Henderson apparently signed a statement on May 14 indicating that in his view he broke no law while implementing the Arkansas Project. But what he does not say and what he does not deny is that he was the person who introduced David Hale to Mr. Olson. The role that David Henderson played in introducing David Hale to Mr. Olson is apparently corroborated by several other witnesses who have spoken to the American Prospect in a story released today. It now strikes me as strange that a man as capable as Mr. Olson with his vast abilities of recall could not remember the name of David Henderson, if Mr. Henderson was, in fact, involved in setting up that representation. And it strikes me as doubly strange when the bipartisan inquiry conducted after the committee vote on this nomination uncovered evidence that Mr. Olson was able to recall who introduced him to David Hale just a couple of years ago when he was asked the same question. The Hale independent counsel report indicates that in 1998 Mr. Olson could supply the name of the person who referred David Hale to him for legal representation. It leads one to easily wonder whether Mr. Olson's failure to recall the name, David Henderson, in the year 2001 had something to do with him not wanting to indicate the connection to such a central figure in the Arkansas project. Some would say, what importance is there to this? Does it really matter whether Mr. Olson accurately and fully described his role in the American Spectator and the Arkansas project? This nomination is for the office of Solicitor General. It is important for two reasons, both of which go to the fitness of the nominee to serve as Solicitor General. The principal question raised by the nomination of Mr. Olson to this particular position--remember, this is a position that is supposed to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, representing all Americans of whatever political allegiance they have, or whether they have none. The question is whether his partisanship over the last several years in connection with so many far-reaching anti-Clinton efforts to mark Mr. Olson as a thorough-going partisan who will not be able to check his partisan political instincts at the door to the Office of the Solicitor General. Now, the reason I ask that is we have another nominee before us, Michael Chertoff, and we asked some of these same questions about Michael Chertoff. In that case, the questions were answered, the doubts dissipated. Instead of a 9-9 vote, Mr. Chertoff, had a rollcall vote in committee and it was unanimous; Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum voted for him. There were Doubts, but the questions about Mr. Chertoff disappeared. But the doubts and questions about Mr. Olson have grown over time. Had Mr. Olson been straightforward with the committee, had he conceded the extent of his involvement in anti-Clinton activities and given the kinds of assurances that Mr. Chertoff did about his upcoming responsibilities, I could very easily be supporting his confirmation. Actually, when I first met with Mr. Olson, and even at his hearing before we had a chance to go through all of his answers and see the areas where they didn't show consistency, I had hoped and expected to be supporting him. In fact, I remember saying to someone in my office at that time that I assumed I would be supporting him. I expected to be able to give him the benefit of the doubt. In light of the deference I normally accord a President's executive branch nominees, I fully expected to be voting for this nomination, just as I voted for so many by the five previous Presidents, both Republican and Democrat. In the wake of the hearing, the series of supplemental responses we have received, and the unanswered questions now in the public record about Mr. Olson's involvement in partisan activities like the Arkansas project, I have many doubts. We also have a question of candor and straightforwardness. I have not had the sense from his hearing onward that Mr. Olson has been truly forthcoming with either me or with the committee. My sense is that for some reason he chose from the outset to try to minimize his role in connection with the activities of the American Spectator, that he has sought to characterize it in the most favorable possible light, that he has sought to conclude for us rather than provide us with the facts and let us conclude how to view his activities. As I review the record and the initial nonresponsiveness, lack of recall, corrections when confronted with specifics, I am left to wonder what happened to ``absolute candor and fair dealing,'' the touchstone that Mr. Olson himself says is necessary for a Solicitor General. In concluding my May 4, 2001, letter to Mr. Olson, I noted: The credibility of the person appointed to be the Solicitor General is of paramount importance. When arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States Government, the Solicitor General is expected to come forward with both the strengths and weaknesses of the case, to inform the Court of things it might not otherwise know, and to be honest in all his or her dealings with the Court. I expect that same responsiveness and cooperation from nominees before this Committee. My expectation had been to support him. Please understand, this is not the role of a lawyer advocate in our legal system. I have been an advocate of the court, both at the trial level and at the appellate level. I have been there both for the prosecution and for the defense. In private practice, I was there both for the plaintiffs and defendants. You fight like mad. You make as strong a case for your client as you can. That is fine. The Solicitor General is different. The Solicitor General is sometimes referred to as the tenth justice. He is expected to tell the Court these are the strengths of my case, but let me tell you also where the weaknesses are of my case. If a matter is left out, or there might be a weakness in the case, he is duty-bound to bring it forward to the Court's knowledge because, if confirmed, Mr. Olson is not a lawyer advocate for just one client because that client is the United States of America--all 270 million of us. I want to be sure that our Nation's top lawyer will see the truth and speak the truth fully to the Supreme Court and represent all of our best interests in the matters over which the Solicitor General exercises public authority. I have confidence that Mr. Olson is an extremely capable lawyer. Of course, I do. Do I have confidence that he can set aside partisanship to thoroughly and evenhandedly represent the United States of America before the Supreme Court? I do not have such confidence, and I cannot vote for him. Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Solicitor General fills a unique position in our Government. The Solicitor General is not merely another legal advocate whose mission is to advance the narrow interests of a client, or merely another advocate of his President's policies. The Solicitor General is much more than that. The Solicitor General must use his or her legal skills and judgment for higher purposes on behalf of the law and the rights of all the people of the United States. At his hearing, Mr. Olson acknowledged that: The Solicitor General holds a unique position in our Government in that he has important responsibilities to all three branches of our Government. . . . And he is considered an officer of the Supreme Court in that he regularly and with scrupulous honesty must present to the Court arguments that are carefully considered and mindful of the Court's role, duty, and limited resources. As the most consistent advocate before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General and the lawyers in that office have a special obligation to inform the Court honestly and openly. The Solicitor General must be an advocate, but he must take special care that the positions he advances before the Court are fairly presented. As Professor Drew Days said to this committee during his confirmation hearing 8 years ago, the Solicitor General has a duty towards the Supreme Court of ``absolute candor and fair dealing.'' Republicans and Democrats have carefully reviewed nominations to the position of Solicitor General to ensure the highest levels of independence and integrity, as well as legal skills. Indeed, the Solicitor General is the only government official who must be, according to the statute, ``learned in the law.'' The Solicitor General must argue with intellectual honesty before the Supreme Court and represent the interests of the Government and the American people for the long term, and not just with an eye to short-term political gain. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent article by Professor Lincoln Caplan on the role of the Solicitor General.