Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Hatch and Senators Biden, DeWine, and Thurmond to introduce the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. This bill provides a comprehensive approach to drug treatment, prevention, and enforcement. It is my hope that the innovative programs established by this legislation will assist all of our States in their efforts to address the drug problems that most affect our communities. No community is immune from the ravages of drug abuse. My own State of Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, yet we are experiencing serious troubles because of the abuse of heroin and other drugs. Recent estimates indicate that heroin use in Vermont has doubled in just the past three years, and the number of people seeking drug treatment has risen even more rapidly. The average age of a first-time heroin user dropped from 27 to 17 during the 1990s, signaling a sharp rise in teenage drug abuse. The consequences of this rise have made themselves all too clear over the past months. On January 3, Christal Jones, a 16-year-old girl from Burlington, was murdered in New York City. According to news reports, she was recruited in Burlington to move to New York and become part of a prostitution ring, and she was motivated by a desire to get money to buy heroin. When she died, drugs were found in her body, although they were not the cause of her death. And Christal Jones' tragedy apparently is not unique as many as a dozen Vermont girls may have been involved in this New York ring. And since her death, others have come forward to say that teenage girls in Burlington are prostituting themselves to get money to buy heroin. These disturbing reports followed by only a few months a heinous drug-related triple murder in Rutland, Vermont. In that case, 20-year- olds Robert Lee and Donald Fell reportedly spent the night drinking and taking crack cocaine, and then allegedly killed Fell's mother and her friend. Looking to get out of Vermont, they then allegedly carjacked a woman arriving for work at a local supermarket and drove to New York, where they are accused of beating her to death. Such a case surely deserves a strong law enforcement response, and last Thursday the accused were indicted by a federal grand jury for carjacking resulting in death and kidnapping, among other charges. Such violence is rarely visited upon my State. When it is, a swift law enforcement response is necessary, and we must do what we can to support the efforts of law enforcement to safeguard our communities. But we kid ourselves if we think that law enforcement alone, with ever- increasing penalties, is the answer to the drug problem. Though effective enforcement of our drug laws, particularly to deter involvement of our young people, is a critical component, this is simply insufficient to meet the severe social effects of drug abuse. We need to provide a comprehensive approach to the drug problems of my State and our nation. In Vermont, as the Rutland Daily Herald recently editorialized, on January 26, 2001, ``agencies that treat addictions'' need ``a boost in resources and manpower.'' Those who work to prevent drug abuse from occurring in the first place need our strong support. I have tried to boost Vermont's anti-drug efforts by working to provide funding for drug prevention, law enforcement, and drug treatment projects. For example, I secured funding for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers in last year's Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. These teen centers give adolescent Vermonters recreational alternatives to drug use. I was also able to help provide significant funding for the Vermont Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force, facilitating the ability of law enforcement officials to work together to tackle Vermont's drug problems. In addition, at my request Congress approved substantial funding for Vermont to plan and establish a long-term residential treatment facility for adolescents. I believe that the bill I introduce today with Senator Hatch will build upon those important efforts by providing a substantial boost for treatment, law enforcement, and prevention, both in Vermont and across the nation. It contains numerous grant programs to aid States and local communities in their efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse. Of particular interest to the residents of my State, it establishes drug treatment grants for rural States and authorizes money for residential treatment centers for mothers addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This legislation also will help States and communities reduce drug use in prisons through testing and treatment, an effort I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act I introduced in the last Congress. It will provide funding for programs designed to reduce recidivism through funding drug treatment and other services for former prisoners after release. In addition, this bill will reauthorize drug courts another step I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act and create juvenile drug courts. Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to review and amend penalties for a number of drug crimes involving children. For example, in addressing circumstances such as those surrounding the death of Christal Jones, the bill instructs the Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines to provide for any necessary sentencing enhancement for criminals who distribute drugs to minors in order to lure a minor into or keep a minor engaged in prostitution or other criminal activity. In short, there are programs in this legislation to benefit all Americans whose lives are disrupted by drug abuse in their families and communities. I strongly recommend this bipartisan bill to my colleagues, and hope that we can move quickly to make it law. As I mentioned earlier, I have worked to provide necessary funding for treatment, prevention, and enforcement efforts in Vermont. Last year, I secured $150,000 for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers, $400,000 for the Vermont Drug Task Force, $100,000 for an adolescent treatment facility, two grants worth $500,000 for a balanced and restorative justice project, $1.7 million in Byrne law enforcement grants, two grants worth $560,000 to reduce underage drinking, about $725,000 for Drug Free Communities Support Programs throughout Vermont, and $274,535 for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, RSAT, programs in the Vermont Corrections Department. In 1999, I worked to procure $270,611 for RSAT programs for Vermont prisons and jails, $75,000 for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers and an additional $74,976 for the Essex Teen Center, two grants worth $660,000 to combat underage drinking, and about $172,000 for Drug Free Community Support programs throughout Vermont. And in 1998, I helped secure $249,864 for balanced and restorative justice programs, $274,938 for RSAT programs, $1.9 million in Byrne law enforcement grants, $360,000 to combat drunk driving, and $424,494 in a Safe Kids/Safe Streets grant. This legislation will provide additional ways that Vermont and other States can benefit from federal assistance to prevent drug abuse and drug-related crime. I would like to describe in more detail some of its most important aspects. This bill authorizes a wide variety of treatment and prevention programs. Treatment and prevention efforts are often overshadowed by law enforcement needs. Indeed, a recent study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, CASA, showed that of every dollar States spent on substance abuse and addiction, only four cents went to prevention and treatment. The States and the Federal government have undeniably important law enforcement obligations, but we must do more to balance those obligations with farsighted efforts to prevent drug crimes from happening in the first place. As I have said, heroin is an increasing problem in Vermont. In other States, methamphetamines or other drugs present a growing challenge. This legislation will help States address their most pressing drug problems, and places a particular emphasis on States that may not have been able to address their treatment and prevention needs in the past. Indeed, among many other provisions, the bill offers funding for rural States like Vermont to establish or enhance treatment centers. It instructs the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to make grants to public and nonprofit private entities that provide treatment and are approved by State experts. This will allow the Vermont agencies looking to provide heroin treatment or to prevent heroin abuse in the first place to acquire Federal funding to help in their efforts. The Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act also authorizes funding for residential treatment centers that treat mothers who are addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This will help mothers and the children who depend on them to rebuild their lives it will keep families together. And I hope it will help avoid further stories like one that appeared in last Sunday's edition of the Burlington Free Press, in which a young mother told a reporter how heroin ``made it easier for [her] to take care of [her] kids.'' The bill also calls for funding drug treatment programs for juveniles. As the tragic story of Christal Jones and the disturbing reports about other girls in her position have shown, juveniles can see their lives quickly deteriorate under the influence of drugs. This is why I have worked to provide Vermont with funding to establish a long- term residential treatment facility for adolescents. I hope to continue that effort through this bill, in the hope that we may be able to prevent future tragedies. Our efforts here must include reducing the lure of drugs, and educating our kids and making sure they have recreational alternatives are two key components. In light of that, this bill authorizes grants to carry out school- and community-based prevention and education programs, with priority given to rural and urban areas experiencing drug problems. It provides additional funding for after-school programs. Finally, it authorizes funding for States to establish demonstration projects of alternative education for at-risk youths. These steps should improve the quality and availability of drug education and prevention efforts throughout the United States. In addition to providing additional funds for treatment and prevention, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review existing criminal penalties and provide any necessary increases for drug crimes involving juveniles. In particular, the Sentencing Commission must review the current penalties for distributing drugs to minors, using minors to distribute drugs, trafficking near a school, and using Federal property to grow or manufacture controlled substances. I would like to highlight one provision in particular in my comments today. This bill calls for the Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines to provide for a specific sentencing enhancement for anyone who distributes drugs to minors in order to lure a minor into or keep a minor engaged in prostitution or other criminal activity. Let me explain why this provision matters. If the law enforcement officials investigating the death of Christal Jones find that the person or people who brought her to New York and prostituted her were giving or selling her heroin to entice her, the punishment should be more severe. This provision will give prosecutors an additional tool to fight such odious conduct. I would also like to commend the approach taken in the criminal provisions in this legislation. Instead of imposing mandatory minimums, we have invested discretion in the Sentencing Commission to determine appropriate penalties. A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation of mandatory minimum drug sentences found that ``mandatory minimums are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.'' Despite this study and mounting evidence of prison overcrowding, legislators continue to propose additional mandatory minimums. In light of the persistence of that idea, this legislation calls for a new study of the issue, including whether mandatory minimums have a disproportionate impact on any racial or ethnic groups and whether they are an appropriate vehicle to punish nonviolent offenders. Last year I introduced the Drug Free Prisons Act, which authorized grants to States to facilitate treatment and testing programs in prisons and jails. This bill provides resources to achieve the same goal. It is critical that our prisons be drug-free, both because lawbreaking within our correctional system is a national embarrassment, and because prisoners who are released while still addicted to drugs are far more likely to commit future crimes than prisoners who are released sober. This bill will provide needed help to address drug abuse in prisons throughout the country. It authorizes $50 million for drug-free prisons and jails bonus grants, allows States to use Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, RSAT, grants to provide services for inmates or former inmates, and reauthorizes funding for substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons. As Joseph Califano, Jr., the president of CASA and former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, told the National Press Club last month: ``The next great opportunity to reduce crime is to provide treatment and training to drug and alcohol abusing prisoners who will return to a life of criminal activity unless they leave prison substance free and, upon release, enter treatment and continuing aftercare.'' This legislation will accomplish both of those goals. A prior CASA study found that drug and alcohol abuse was implicated in the crimes and incarceration of 80 percent of those currently serving time in America's prisons. This finding shows that we have a prison population that has a history of substance abuse, and will seek out opportunities to continue using drugs while imprisoned. Of course, if prisoners are using drugs in prison, this will create serious behavioral and other problems that corrections officers will have to address, at no small risk to them. The problem does not end there. The same CASA study shows that inmates who are illegal drug and/or alcohol abusers are the most likely to be repeat offenders. In fact, the study concluded that 61 percent of state prison inmates who have two prior convictions are regular drug users. The strong link between drug use and recidivism cannot be ignored. Prison should provide an opportunity for us to break this cycle and therefore reduce crime. We can do this through a concerted effort to test prisoners for drug use and penalize those who test positive and provide adequate drug treatment so that prisoners can lead productive, non-criminal lives upon their release. This approach to reducing drug use and addiction in prisons has the support of Jim Walton, Vermont's Commissioner of Public Safety, and John Perry, the Director of Planning for the Vermont Department of Corrections, who work with these issues every day. I have always valued their counsel, as they have first-hand knowledge of the real law enforcement needs in my state. They both feel strongly that the bill will give law enforcement the tools it needs to test and treat offender populations, both in jail and in the community. I hope and expect that this bill will have the same effect across the country. In addition to providing funding for drug treatment and testing in prisons, this legislation also adopts a proposal made by Senator Biden in both this Congress and the last that would provide funding for Federal and State programs designed to ease the transition of criminal offenders back into society after their release. It establishes court- based programs to monitor the return of offenders into communities. These programs include drug treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment, vocational and educational training, life skills instructions, and assistance in obtaining suitable affordable housing. Each program uses court sanctions and incentives to promote positive behavior and graduated levels of supervision within the community corrections facility to promote community safety. I commend Senator Biden for his leadership on this program. The bill also re-establishes the drug courts program and re- authorizes funding for it, as I proposed in last year's Drug Free Prisons Act. The majority repealed the authorization of the drug courts program in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, in an apparent attempt to discredit Democratic programs. In my view, effective programs dealing with drug abuse should not be used as political footballs. That is why the Congress has continued to fund drug courts in every year's appropriations acts. This has been the right decision, and we should undo the repeal. Drug courts provide the opportunity to deal systematically with nonviolent drug offenders at a substantial savings to taxpayers. Instead of jailing these nonviolent offenders, the courts can order alternative punishments that are mixed with mandatory testing and drug treatment and human services such as education or vocational training. Meanwhile, imprisonment is held out as a stick to ensure good behavior. To qualify for federal assistance, a drug court program must mandate periodic drug testing during any supervised release or probation periods, provide drug abuse treatment for each participant, and hold out the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration for noncompliance or failure to show satisfactory process. Violent offenders are defined quite broadly, so we can be confident that we are not funding programs that put dangerous people back on the streets. In addition to reauthorizing drug courts for adults, this legislation authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to State and local governments to establish juvenile drug courts, extending the drug court model that has shown significant promise in dealing with adult offenders to juveniles. Juvenile drug courts should provide a way to reach out to younger offenders before they turn to a life of crime, helping to save both lives and significant government resources. Finally, I would like to comment on the inclusion of charitable choice language in this legislation to allow religious groups to compete for grants on the same basis as other groups. Although the language in this bill mirrors language that was passed in the Children's Health Act last year as well as in previous legislation, I have serious reservations about it. I know that many of my colleagues share those reservations. Charitable choice is going to be a significant issue during this Congress. I would have preferred that we have hearings about charitable choice before including it in this bill, and I made my feelings known to Senator Hatch. I asked him to introduce the bill without the language and consider adding it later if specific language could be crafted for which there was bipartisan support. But Senator Hatch was committed to including this language in the bill as introduced. Let me be clear: its inclusion here does not represent my endorsement. As this legislation is considered by the Committee and the Senate, we need to give considerable thought to the approach taken here. I intend to work with Senator Hatch and the other sponsors of the bill to ensure that the important protections and prohibitions of the First Amendment are fully respected. At the very least, we need to ensure that those who receive federal drug treatment and prevention funds are trained professionals, and that the government funds are not used in any way, directly or indirectly, to support or promote discrimination. At the same time, I believe that this bill, taken as a whole, will do a great deal of good. While charitable choice language is in this bill today, I have made no commitment to having this charitable choice language in the bill when Congress passes it. My commitment is to help improve drug treatment, prevention, and education throughout the United States. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two newspaper articles.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my support to promoting electronic commerce and keeping it free from discriminatory and multiple state and local taxes. I am pleased to join the senior senator from Oregon as an original cosponsor of the Internet Non-Discrimination and Sales Tax Simplification Act. I commend Senator Wyden for his continued leadership on Internet tax policy. The Internet has changed the way we do business. Today, businesses can sell their goods and services all over the world in the blink of an eye. E-commerce has created new markets, new efficiencies and new products. In fact, retail revenues from electronic commerce grew from $13 billion in 1999 to $26 billion in 2000. Retail sales are expected to continue to grow on the Internet to $178 billion in 2005. The growth of electronic commerce is everywhere, including my home state of Vermont. Today, hundreds of Vermont businesses are doing business on the Internet, ranging from the Vermont Teddy Bear Company to Al's Snowmobile Parts Warehouse to Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream. Let me just give you a few examples of Cyberselling in Vermont: The New York Times recently profiled Buch Spieler, a Montpelier music store, as a shining example of the power of the Internet to boast sales and change the way many local stores do business. According to Fred Wilber, who has been running Buch Spieler for the past 27 years, overall sales has jumped by 10 percent and its customer base has expanded by 20 percent in the 18 months since he took his business online. Gardeners Supply Company of Burlington opened its web site five years ago to accompany its catalog of environmentally-sound products. With an average annual growth rate of about 150 percent, Gardeners now sells more than $10 million worth on products online. Pompanoosuc Mills, a furniture company in Thetford, has been online for about two years. In its first year, the company made about $1,300 a week from Internet-related sales. By its second year, online sales had tripled to $4,000 a week. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, based in Waterbury, went on the web to gain more direct access to consumers since its coffee business was about 95 percent wholesale. Today, Green Mountain has doubled its retail sales through the Internet. And Burr Morse, President of Morse Farm Sugar Works, outside Montpelier, sold so much maple syrup online that he testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on the benefits of e-commerce for small businesses nationwide. For the past five years I have learned first-hand about this e- commerce explosion by hosting annual workshops on Internet sales. At my Doing Business On The Internet Workshops in Vermont, small business owners recounted tales of successful selling on the Web and share their tips for future success with fellow entrepreneurs. For instance, Megan Smith of The Vermont Inn in Killington attended one of the workshops and now takes reservations over the Net from customers all across the country and around the world. And Maura Malone attended our workshops for the past three years in a row to learn how to reach more customers for her fabric/quilt store, Back Country Threads, which is deep in the woods in Essex. She created her own website and won the ``Top Customer Service Award'' from Yahoo Store for the last 10 months running. These Vermont cybersellers are of all sizes and customer bases, from Main Street merchants to boutique entrepreneurs to a couple of famous ex-hippies who sell great ice cream. But what Vermont online sellers do have in common is that Internet commerce allows them to erase the geographic barriers that historically have limited our access to major markets. With the power of the Internet, Vermonters can sell their products and services anywhere, anytime. Cyberselling is paying off for Vermont and the rest of the nation. With the Internet's exciting economic opportunities come unique challenges. One of the critical challenges in our new economy is developing fair and balanced tax policy that respects the rights of states and local jurisdictions while fostering a stable environment for e-commerce to continue to grow. I believe the Internet Non- Discrimination and Sales Tax Simplification Act strikes that fair balance. Our legislation extends the current moratorium against discriminatory and multiple taxes on goods and services sold over the Internet through 2006. The current three-year moratorium, enacted as part of the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, which I was proud to cosponsor, is set to expire in October 2001. This five-year extension of the moratorium was one of the recommendations in the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce's April 2000 report to Congress. Electronic commerce is beginning to blossom, but it is still in its infancy. Stability is key to reaching its full potential, and creating new tax categories for the Internet is exactly the wrong thing to do. Internet commerce should not be subject to discriminatory new taxes that do not apply to other commerce. Indeed, without the current moratorium, there are 30,000 different jurisdictions around the country that could levy discriminatory or multiple Internet taxes on e-commerce. We need to continue the moratorium to provide the stability necessary for electronic commerce to flourish. We are not asking for a tax-free zone on the Internet; if sales taxes and other taxes would apply to traditional sales and services, then those taxes would also apply to Internet sales under our legislation. But our legislation would continue the ban on any taxes applied only to Internet sales in a discriminatory manner. Let's not allow the future of electronic commerce--with its great potential to expand the markets of Main Street businesses--to be crushed by the weight of multiple or discriminatory taxation. While Congress should continue to prevent discriminatory e-commerce taxes, we also need a national policy to make sure that the traditional state and local sales taxes on Internet sales are applied and collected fairly and uniformly. Our bill encourages states to simplify their sales tax rules and to develop national standards on e-commerce. To help state and local governments improve their collection of sales taxes on e-commerce, our bill authorizes Congress to consider legislation under fast-track procedures to require sellers to collect sales taxes on goods and services sold over the Internet. I commend the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association for their efforts to create uniformity among states for the collection of remote sales taxes. I hope our legislation will further this simplification process as state legislatures and governors around the nation work together to come up with national standards for e-commerce taxation. I pledge to work with them to reach consensus on these difficult remote tax issues. Today, there are more than a million businesses selling their sales and services on the World Wide Web around the world. This explosion in Web growth has led to thousands of new jobs and exciting opportunities for businesses from Main Street to Wall Street. A March 1999 survey of e-commerce in Vermont that I commissioned found that Vermont businesses had already created 1,404 jobs as a result of Internet commerce--with the potential to create 24,280 new jobs in my home state by the end of this year. The Internet Non-Discrimination and Sales Tax Simplification Act will insure that Vermonters continue to reap the rewards of electronic commerce. E-Commerce is booming, our moratorium law is working, and we should keep a good thing going and growing. I am proud to cosponsor the Internet Non-Discrimination and Sales Tax Simplification Act to encourage online commerce to continue to grow with confidence. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to our friend and colleague Alan Cranston. His death on December 31 last year was a shock. Alan was such a life force that it is hard for me to imagine his silence and his not being there for great arms control debates. Senator Cranston was a man of conviction, a true humanitarian in every sense of those words. He began his career in public policy in the 1930s as a journalist warning his readers of the dangerous rise of fascism. He knew even then that the United States was locked in an intricate web of relations with the rest of the world and that our attempts to ignore that web could only lead to calamity for ourselves and those around us. Alan understood the concept of globalization at least 50 years before it gained such notoriety to earn a name. It was primarily that impulse to engage the world that brought Alan into elective office and eventually to the United States Senate. As State of California Controller from 1958 to 1967, he worked to rationalize the booming state's finances and ensure that all Californians could benefit from that phenomenal rise. But it was in the Senate where Alan could most effectively work toward his vision of a peaceable world. Before the people of California sent him here in 1968, he learned about the Senate's moderating influence and the consequences of its shirking that role. In his post- World War ``Killing of the Peace,'' Alan explained how the U.S. Senate's defeat of the League of Nations contributed to the outbreak of that war and the horrible events that followed. Most of his activities during his impressive 24 years here were an expression of his deep desire for the Senate to avoid similar mistakes. He brought a special seriousness of purpose and attentiveness to arms control issues as diverse as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and ongoing production of the B-2 Stealth Bomber. On several occasions, I joined him in opposing the production of new, destabilizing types of nuclear weapons, and I was always struck by Alan's sense of nuance and willful resolve. Alan was not one to ignore his own personal responsibilities to the Senate. As Democratic Whip, Alan made this body run efficiently. If there is anyone who was never afraid to count the votes, it was Alan. He knew how to smoke us out on our intentions. What made him so effective was his persuasive argumentation and downright persistence. Sometimes he could change my mind faster than he could run a 100-yard dash, which was pretty fast considering he was a lifelong record- setting sprinter. It was unsurprising that after his Senate career he led the non- profit Global Security Institute where he continued to press from arms control initiatives. The Institute provided a perfect platform from which he could promote his expanded notion of security. After the Cold War, Alan realized before everyone else that security no longer meant merely protection from weapons of mass destruction. He saw that security in the new millennium was also about avoiding environmental degradation, securing our food supply, and educating our children. Alan was a forward-thinker and an alternative voice at a time when conventional wisdom demanded examination. He worked to make our world safer, and he was a good friend. I will miss him greatly.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also rise to voice support for S. 248, a bill to release $582 million in U.S. dues to the United Nations. Payment of our dues is long overdue, and I am glad to see this bipartisan bill come before the Senate. We know the United Nations is not a perfect organization. No organization made up of 189 countries could possibly satisfy everyone. In that sense, it is sort of like a country composed of 50 States. But just as the States rely on the Federal Government to address problems that affect each of us collectively, the United States relies on the collective diplomacy and security that only the United Nations can provide. Every day the U.N. is fighting critical battles to resolve conflicts, contain the spread of infectious diseases, stop environmental pollution, protect human rights, strengthen democracy, and prevent starvation, to mention just some of its roles. U.N. peacekeepers are deployed around the world--from East Timor to Cyprus to the Sinai--to help prevent violence and restore stability where it is badly needed. Of the tens of thousands of U.N. peacekeepers deployed, only a tiny fraction are Americans. These missions help to avoid U.S. military intervention and far more costly humanitarian relief operations. We are the world's only superpower, and we have a wide range of interests on every continent. We need to send a strong message that the United States supports the United Nations but that other nations need to contribute their share as well. This legislation is a clear step in that direction. Getting here has not been easy, and I want to commend four individuals who deserve special credit. First and foremost, it was the determination of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who led us to this breakthrough that few thought was possible. In January, he received a standing ovation from both Republicans and Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee. It was well deserved. We also had the bipartisan vision and leadership of Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Joe Biden. They established a framework for this deal with the Helms-Biden legislation, and both deserve a great deal of credit. Finally, we should recognize Ted Turner. It was his gift of $34 million that was the final piece of the puzzle. We should all be grateful for his generosity and foresight, although it is somewhat embarrassing that the government of the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history had to rely on the personal donation of a private citizen to help meet its obligations to the international community. While I am very pleased with this legislation, more still needs to be done to address weaknesses in United Nations peacekeeping missions. We have seen poorly conceived missions, serious logistical delays, ill- equipped and undertrained troops, and instances of misconduct. While these were exceptions rather than the rule and were largely the fault of the U.N.'s member states, I was encouraged by two developments early this fall that began to address some of these problems. First, the U.N. issued a report, produced by an outside panel of experts, that included some common-sense recommendations for improving the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. This was followed by a serious discussion of peacekeeping reform by the heads of state of several key countries at the Millennium Summit. These two events triggered widespread praise from the international community and a number of supportive editorials in the U.S. press. The Bush administration and Congress need to take a close look at these developments and determine what the U.S. can do to further efforts to improve U.N. peacekeeping. The administration and Congress should also consider lifting the 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping contributions. During the campaign, President Bush called for the U.S. to act in a more ``humble'' manner in the international arena. This may be a good place to start. The European Union, whose GDP is roughly equivalent our own, pays over 39 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs, while the U.S. contribution will fall to 26.5 percent. Moreover, the agreement that was reached in December requires 29 nations to accept increases in their assessment rates, ranging from 50 percent to 500 percent. Yet, we still maintain the 25 percent cap, and continue to accumulate arrears--hardly a statement of humility. The time may now be right to remove the cap, especially if the administration concludes that U.S. interests are better served without it. Mr. President, we all want to see reform to continue at the U.N. However, refusing to pay our dues has irritated our friends and allies, who were legitimately concerned that we wanted a continued veto over U.N. decisions, without meeting our treaty obligations. It hurt our credibility, and it weakened our influence. So I am pleased that we are finally acting to remedy this problem by passing this legislation today. I see the Senator from Florida, and I yield the floor to him.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator McCain to introduce a Senate resolution to provide Internet Access to important Congressional documents. Our bipartisan resolution makes certain Congressional Research Service products, lobbyist disclosure reports and Senate gift disclosure reports available over the Internet to the American people. The Congressional Research Service, CRS, has a well-known reputation for producing high-quality reports and information briefs that are unbiased, concise, and accurate. The taxpayers of this country, who pay $67 million a year to fund the CRS, deserve speedy access to these public resources and have a right to see that their money is being spent well. The goal of our legislation is to allow every citizen the same access to the wealth of CRS information as a Member of Congress enjoys today. CRS performs invaluable research and produces first-rate reports on hundreds of topics. American taxpayers have every right to direct access to these wonderful resources. Online CRS reports will serve an important role in informing the public. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise, accurate summary of the issues before the Congress. As elected representatives, we should do what we can to promote an informed, educated public. The educated voter is best able to make decisions and petition us to do the right things here in Congress. Our legislation follows the model online CRS program in the House of Representatives and ensures that private CRS products will remain protected by giving the CRS Director the authority to hold back any products that are deemed confidential. Moreover, the Director may protect the identity of CRS researchers and any copyrighted material. We can do both--protect confidential material and empower our citizens through electronic access to invaluable CRS products. In addition, the bipartisan resolution would provide public online access to lobbyist reports and gift disclosure forms. At present, these public records are available in the Senate Office of Public Records in Room 232 of the Hart Building. As a practical matter, these public records are accessible only to those inside the Beltway. I applaud the Office of Public Records for recently making technological history in the Senate by providing for lobbying registrations through the Internet. The next step is to provide the completed lobbyist disclosure reports on the Internet for all Americans to see. The Internet offers us a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to this public information. Our bipartisan legislation would harness the power of the Information Age to allow average citizens to see these public records of the Senate in their official form, in context and without editorial comment. All Americans should have timely access to the information that we already have voted to give them. And all of these reports are indeed ``public'' for those who can afford to hire a lawyer or lobbyist or who can afford to travel to Washington to come to the Office of Public Records in the Hart Building and read them. That is not very public. That does not do very much for the average voter in Vermont or the rest of this country outside of easy reach of Washington. That does not meet the spirit in which we voted to make these materials public, when we voted ``disclosure'' laws. We can do better, and this resolution does better. Any citizen in any corner of this country with access to a computer at home or the office or at the public library will be able to get on the Internet and get these important Congressional documents under our resolution. It allows individual citizens to check the facts, to make comparisons, and to make up their own minds. I commend the Senior Senator from Arizona for his leadership on opening public access to Congressional documents. I share his desire for the American people to have electronic access to many more Congressional resources. I look forward to working with him in the days to let the information age open up the halls of Congress to all our citizens. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``Information is the currency of democracy.'' Our democracy is stronger if all citizens have equal access to at least that type of currency, and that is something which Members on both sides of the aisle can celebrate and join in. This bipartisan resolution is an important step in informing and empowering American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to make available useful Congressional information to the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. LEAHY. The only time I have heard numbers expressed was from the Republican leadership, when they stated before the hearings began-- before 1 minute of hearings was held--that all 50 Republican Senators were expected to, and would, vote for Senator Ashcroft, and, of course, plus Vice President Cheney, which would make a majority. I do also appreciate him saying that we now come to the vote. I point out this matter has come to a vote much quicker than the last contested Attorney General, which was in President Reagan's term, with a Republican-controlled Senate, where they took about 10 months to bring it to a vote. The nomination papers arrived Monday, we voted in the committee on Tuesday, and we are going to have a final vote on Thursday. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Dakota. He is one of the most thoughtful Members of this body. I know he has spent a great deal of time researching this. I know on an issue such as this, when it was time to make his decision, there were only two elements that totally influenced him--his conscience and his oath of office. I know my friend from South Dakota upheld them both. Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the Republican side at the moment. The order gives them control of this debate from 9:45 until 10 o'clock. I ask consent to be able to continue. I know I have 4 minutes remaining, but if need be, I ask unanimous consent to take another 5 minutes with the understanding I will yield that back immediately if a member of the Republican Party shows up to take their time, and I so ask unanimous consent.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, had mentioned me by name on several occasions during his remarks. I will take a moment to respond to two of the points of the distinguished Senator from Arizona. First, he said we somehow put Senator Ashcroft in an impossible catch-22 situation where, if he promises to enforce the law, it is described as a confirmation evolution or a metamorphosis. I think that is a significant oversimplification of what the record shows. I had the record here yesterday. It is well over 2 feet high in just the questions and answers. It also oversimplifies what the job of the Attorney General is. It is not simply to enforce the law. Nobody questions the fact that if you have some terrible crime--Oklahoma City, for example--whoever is the Attorney General will enforce the law and bring down the full force of the majesty of the law of this country regarding something that heinous. In airplane hijacking, assassination, any one of these things where the Attorney General gets involved in making decisions of who gets prosecuted, what the penalties are, nobody questions, no matter who is Attorney General, instituting the full force of that law. However, it is the discretionary areas that are troublesome. Many Members in this body have been prosecutors. We know everybody who is an Attorney General, a district attorney, is faced with a number of issues where you can apply the law at any one area of severity. We all know you can decide the interest of society might be not to apply the law, not to seek an indictment. We also know that any prosecutor has broad discretionary powers in what to investigate and what not to investigate; when to initiate a case, when to withhold a case; when to drop a matter or to settle a case. What do you do, for example, in antitrust? Do you bring the suit? Do you drop the suit? What do you do in seeking a civil rights remedy? Do you look into it or not? What happens if you think there has been voter fraud that may affect your party and not the other party? Do you still look at it as strictly, or not? The Attorney General is not the President's attorney. In fact, it should be pointed out that the President is allowed to appoint a White House counsel--anybody he wants--and there is no Senate confirmation. The reason for that is very simple: We have all believed whoever is President should have counsel, a lawyer, representing him and his interests in the White House with whom nobody else can interfere. Every President has done that. It makes sense the President will pick them and we can't question them. We can't say, you shouldn't have picked this person; you shouldn't have picked that person. That is the President's own attorney. The Attorney General is different. The Attorney General is different from anybody else in the Cabinet because the Attorney General is not a political officer and a political arm of the White House. The Attorney General represents all of us, whether rich, poor, black, white, Democrat, Republican, old, young, conservative, liberal, moderate. We are all represented by the Attorney General. That is why the Attorney General is given such enormous discretion--in fact, in many instances well beyond, whether the President likes it or not. The President can always fire the Attorney General, but the Attorney General has that discretionary power. When Senator Ashcroft says he will exercise that discretion in a manner that respects settled law, a number of areas in which he aggressively and vigorously opposed throughout his career, then it is understandable that many Members may be troubled and skeptical. My friend from Arizona says many Members have criticized the Republicans for applying too tough a standard to the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division, yet we seem to be applying the same standard to Senator Ashcroft. When Bill Lann Lee swore under oath and reiterated time and time again that he would enforce the law, we were told by our friends on the Republican side of the Senate, this wasn't good enough, we couldn't accept that--basically using the same words Senator Ashcroft used. The difference is we were prepared to vote against; they wouldn't allow a vote. If they didn't believe him, they chould have voted against him; if they were for him, they could have voted for him. It is different here. Here we are debating Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General. We actually received the nomination in the Senate earlier this week. After the then-President-elect said he was going to nominate him, we moved forward to have a hearing and completed the hearing prior to the President's inauguration. That is a major difference. We are going to vote on him. Bill Lann Lee--we should point out, if people are going to raise that as a standard--Bill Lann Lee, a fine, dedicated person, who swore to uphold the law, was never even given the courtesy of a vote by the Senate. Senator Ashcroft can be asked how he interprets the oath of office. It is the same oath of office he will take as U.S. Attorney General. It is the one he took as Missouri's Governor and attorney general. That is why we have raised so many of the points in the hearing. They demonstrate an interpretation of his oath of office in the past, his interpretation of law that he now claims during 2 days of hearings, an entirely different interpretation from what he has shown for 25 years prior to those 2 days of hearings. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much coming from one of the intellectual giants of the Senate, my good friend from Maryland. I appreciate what he said. He and I are two who believe strongly in the Senate's role and to do all we can to carry it out. I appreciate his kind words.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't want to leave the impression in this Chamber that there is some kind of unanimity of law enforcement in opposition to Judge Ronnie White. In fact, a very substantial number in law enforcement in Missouri wrote to us, wrote to the Members of the Senate, and said they strongly supported Judge Ronnie White. One of the leading law enforcement organizations wrote to us and said they were distressed that he was not confirmed on the basis that somehow he might be pro-criminal. The record showed that he voted with appointees by then-Governor Ashcroft something like 95 or 96 percent of the time in death penalty cases.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Indeed, it was. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print additional editorials and material regarding the nomination in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. The point is, the Fraternal Order of Police were dismayed that he was defeated on the basis that he might be anti-law enforcement. They pointed out that he was pro-law enforcement. The concern has been expressed and was expressed at the hearing for Judge White, concern that prompted an apology from some Republicans who had voted against Judge White, regarding the way he was basically ambushed--that is the expression that has been used--on the Senate floor. We have never had a case where a judicial nomination has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee, brought to the Senate floor, and then defeated--in this case, on a party-line vote. What happened and what has created a great deal of concern is that here is a person who came from very humble beginnings, worked his way through law school, was considered a highly respected member of the bar in Missouri, became a justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and then, sort of at the pinnacle of his legal career, was nominated to be a Federal district judge. He went through the hearings in the Judiciary Committee, was voted out by the Judiciary Committee by a lopsided margin. It comes to the floor and then, in a party-line vote, is defeated. As my friend from Oklahoma mentioned, the Missouri State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police indicated that on behalf of 4,500 law enforcement officers they viewed Justice White's record as a jurist as one whose record on the death penalty was far more supportive of the rights of victims than of the rights of criminals. The president of the Missouri police chiefs association described Justice White as an upright, fine individual. They had a hard time seeing that he was against law enforcement and never thought of him as pro-criminal. One can debate a judge's position. Basically, as I said, he voted on death penalty cases 95 percent of the time with justices appointed by then-Governor Ashcroft. What bothered me and bothered a lot of Senators--and bothered Republican Senators who publicly then apologized to Judge White--was the fact that he was basically ambushed on the Senate floor. There was testimony before our Judiciary Committee that it was not his vote on one particular case but, rather, the fact that he was made a political pawn in a Senate race. That is wrong. We should keep the judiciary out of politics. He was dragged in and his reputation was unnecessarily besmirched. His career was damaged. All he had worked for all of his life was for naught, and it was done for political purposes. That is what most people objected to. That was certainly what the letters indicated that I have received--including concern expressed by people who told me, first and foremost, they voted for then-Governor Bush to become President Bush but felt that this was wrong.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just so the Record is straight on law enforcement officers, it is interesting that there was no contact of anybody on this side. Senator Ashcroft said the reason he stopped Judge White was because of that urging of law enforcement groups. But then subsequently, press reports and then the reports by the law enforcement officials themselves and Senator Ashcroft's own testimony at his hearing contradicted that; that he had instigated and orchestrated the groups' opposition to Ronnie White. I am not suggesting Ronnie White was defeated because he was an African American, but it would be hard for anybody not to know he was insofar as that was mentioned at great length in the debate the day before and the debate just before the vote by those who were on the floor debating it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is on the floor, I appreciate the last part of his remarks. I will speak more about it later today. I am concerned that there has somehow been this strawman put up as though there is a religious test. As I and others stated at the beginning of these hearings and as I stated on the floor, one of the things I admire most about Senator Ashcroft is his commitment to his family, his commitment to his religion. As practically everybody has pointed out, whether we are for or against him as Attorney General, these are two things we have admired the most: his commitment to his family and his commitment to his religion. There should be no doubt about that in the public's mind.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New York. I have often said how much I enjoyed being on the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the reasons is that the Senator from New York serves there. It is a committee where we often have spirited debates. We usually debate the most interesting issues before the Senate, but I rely more and more on the Senator from New York to boil down the essence of the arguments and to lead that debate. I am sorry the Senator from Utah is not on the floor at the moment, but the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I worked very hard to put together a hearing where both sides could be heard. I believe we did that. In fact, unlike the usual practice here, both sides had the same number of witnesses. If I recall, in this case, the minority side, the Republican side, actually had one more witness. But we tried to make sure that anybody who could add anything to the debate and should be heard was heard. Even during the hearings, we actually had people who were added at the last minute at the request of Senator Hatch. He showed unfailing courtesy throughout all that, and I thank him for that. I see the Senator from Indiana in the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent that the following editorials and materials with regard to the Ashcroft nomination be printed in the Record: A column by Steve Neal from the Chicago Sun-Times of January 31, 2001; An editorial from the Christian Science Monitor of today, February 1, 2001; An editorial from the Rutland Daily Herald of January 24, 2001; A column by Stuart Taylor from National Journal of January 13, 2001; A column by Stuart Taylor from National Journal of October 10, 1999; and An op-ed by Benjamin Wittes from Washington Post of October 13, 1999.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while my friend from Mississippi is still here, I ask unanimous consent, it is only a matter of a few minutes, that I still have the full half hour that had been reserved under the previous order.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we get to the end of this debate, I think it is wise if we look at some of the facts of the debate and not just the rhetoric. We debated this matter virtually nonstop from 10:30 yesterday morning until 8:10 yesterday evening. We did it without intervening business. I do not think we had as much as 5 minutes expended in quorum calls. For our side, this was certainly not a dilatory debate but a substantive one. It was not the politics of personal destruction, but the Senate exercising its constitutional responsibility to examine one of the most important nominations that this President or any President could send to the Senate. Let's go over the facts. The Senate received the President's nomination on Monday afternoon of this week. The Judiciary Committee debated this nomination on Tuesday afternoon the following day, and voted on it that evening. We began the Senate debate yesterday morning, less than 48 hours after receiving the nomination. We are concluding it in less than 14 and one half hours of Senate debate. We are voting up or down on this nomination this afternoon. I mention this because I have heard those who point to the nomination of the last Attorney General, Janet Reno, as some sort of model of speedy confirmation. She was nominated after an earlier nomination had hearings and was withdrawn. Her nomination was not voted upon for a month after she was nominated. By comparison, we are voting on John Ashcroft when his nomination has been before us for only less than three days. That was not a controversial nomination. Republicans, as well as Democrats, came to the floor to praise her record, but she was still not sworn in until mid-March. A better comparison would be to find the last controversial nomination; that was that of Attorney General Meese. He was first nominated in January 1984 by President Reagan. He was finally considered by the Republican-controlled Senate in February 1985, 13 months after being nominated. Five weeks ensued between his nomination and his initial hearing. The nomination underwent 7 days of hearings, involved nearly 50 witnesses, under a Republican-controlled Senate, when he was Republican nominee by a popular Republican President. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee, a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, by a 12-6 vote, not the lesser margin of 10-8 by which the Ashcroft nomination was reported. The Senate, with a Republican majority leader, allowed 2 weeks between the committee vote and Senate consideration--2 weeks, not the 17 hours we had on the Ashcroft nomination. The Senate debated the Meese nomination over 4 days, on February 19, 20, 21, and 23--not the day and a half devoted to the Ashcroft nomination. Then, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 63-31 to confirm Attorney General Meese. I believe those 31 negative votes were the most ever against an Attorney General. Even as the very popular President Reagan was preparing to begin his second term, the nomination of his Attorney General resulted in 7 days of Senate hearings, 4 days of Senate debate, and 31 votes in opposition. I mention this because there was some suggestion that maybe some on this side held this up. This nomination was handled a lot more rapidly done than at the time of Attorney General Meese. The Senate is soon going to vote on the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. I think it is safe to say that all of us in this body would like to be able to vote in favor of the next Attorney General. Those of us who are going to vote no on this nomination take no pleasure in doing so. Frankly, I have heard many say--and I feel this myself--we wish the President had sent a different nomination for this critical job. We wish, if he wished to have our colleague, Senator Ashcroft in the Cabinet, that he had nominated him for a different position. We wish the President had adhered to the standard he set forth in his own inaugural address and that he had sent us a nominee who would unite the country and have the utmost credibility with the disaffected, dispossessed, and disenfranchised. We knew the nomination of Senator Ashcroft had become a ``done deal'' weeks ago. The Republican leadership reported that all 50 Republican Senators would be voting in favor of this nomination, and, of course, with the Vice President they would be able to win. This decision was made before any hearing, before the nominee answered any question, written or oral, before any background check or review of his record was ever begun, let alone completed. That is why some members of the Judiciary Committee on the other side went so far as to argue that the committee need not hear testimony from the public at all, and need not review the nominees's required financial disclosures, papers required of every nominee. Most Democratic Senators, I am happy to say, declined to prejudge the matter. As chairman during the 17 days of the Judiciary Committee hearing, I expedited a balanced hearing to review the nominee's record and to hear people from Missouri and others, pro and con, on this important nomination. We had virtually an equal number for Senator Ashcroft as against him--I think actually one more for. But I believe that all Senators can be proud that our hearings focused on issues, not on the nominee's personal life. We can also be proud of the tone set during this debate on the Senate floor. But there is one big exception. I take strong exception--in fact, the strongest terms I can think of in my 26 years in the Senate--to the characterization we have heard about the issue of religion and this nomination. The Senate was told that opponents of this nomination have implied that Christians have no place in public life. If that charge was not on its face so absolutely preposterous in this body, it would have invited several hours of discussion to set the record straight. It is such an untrue and inflammatory assertion. Needless to say, if that was the debate, it would be fair to speculate that many, probably most of President Bush's nominees are Christians and confirmed by this body. All of his nominees are confirmed. I know of none planned, or who have been announced by the distinguished leader as ready for votes, who are not going to be confirmed. If their religion has been mentioned at all, it has been mentioned to their credit. Is it really necessary to point out that men and women of Christian faiths are plentiful in both parties in these very Halls of Congress? More to the point, there are good people, who are Christians, on both sides of the Ashcroft nomination, just as there are good people, who are not Christians, on both sides of the Ashcroft nomination. In fact, the reason religion has come up during these confirmation proceedings is not because of John Ashcroft's religious beliefs, but because of concern about the level of tolerance he may show towards those with different religious beliefs. That is why his visit to and acceptance of an honorary degree from, and comments made during the hearings about Bob Jones University, have been a legitimate concern to many. The relevance of Senator Ashcroft's association with Bob Jones University is not about his own religious beliefs. It is about what it says about Senator Ashcroft's sensitivity and tolerance towards those whom that institution regards in such negative ways, and treats so differently. The policies of that institution have been to bar African Americans, to bar interracial dating, and to derogate Mormons and Catholics as belonging to cults. That John Ashcroft does not seem to fully understand the concern that this causes to many Americans is itself troubling to so many. We have heard from some the term they have seemed to coin: ``religious profiling.'' I will say it once again as clearly as I can. No Senator on either side of the aisle during these proceedings has sought to apply any religious test to John Ashcroft. No Senator has sought to tar the nominee as a racist. Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs have not been a source of inquiry or concern for any member of the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding, ironically enough, what Bob Jones University has said about Catholics and Mormons--with the two leaders of this committee being one a Catholic and the other a Mormon--both Senator Hatch and I have said we have never once heard Senator Ashcroft take the position that Bob Jones University has towards us or anybody of our religions. This confirmation debate has not been about religious profiling. If anything, this is a nomination struggle about issue profiling, and those issues include the nominee's record on civil rights and women's rights, the rights of gay Americans, and voter registration. Those supporting this nomination argue that he should be confirmed because his religious devotion represents a special, unimpeachable level of integrity, and that his religion makes him more likely to abide by his oath of office. My view is that religion is neither a qualification nor disqualification for public office. I hold deep religious beliefs. But as I told someone as I left church this Sunday, this past Sunday: I would not expect anybody to vote either for or against me because of my religious beliefs. I would expect them to vote for or against me because of my political beliefs. Indeed, article VI of the Constitution prohibits any religious test as a qualification for public office. I hope Senator Ashcroft's supporters are not urging any form of such unconstitutional test. The issue is his public record, not his religious faith. I and several others have said how much we admire his commitment to his family and his religion. I consider those two of the most admirable qualities in our former colleague. The issue, though, is how he has fulfilled his public duties. Senator Byrd posed the question yesterday whether any man's past can withstand scrutiny. Confirmation hearings should not be held to dissect a nominee's personal life--and this one did not--but they are to examine his past record and actions, to hear from the nominee about how he views his prior positions and actions within the perspective and wisdom that time should bring. What I observed of this nominee at his hearings can be summed up in two words: No regrets. He had no regrets about the aggressive manner in which he litigated in opposition to a voluntary desegregation plan in St. Louis, or about the missed opportunity to resolve that divisive matter, about his use or his involvement for political gain, or about the misleading testimony he initially gave the committee about whether the State of Missouri was a party to the litigation and had been found liable. He had no regrets about vetoing two bills designed to ensure equal voting rights for African American voters in St. Louis. He had no regrets about appearing at Bob Jones University, and he even testified that he might return there after being confirmed as Attorney General of the United States. He certainly passed up the opportunity, as has been suggested, now that he knows so much about Bob Jones University, to take the honorary degree, put it in an envelope, and send it back. He had no regrets about granting an interview to the Southern Partisan and praising this neo-Confederate magazine and appearing to embrace its point of view. One of the things that bothered me greatly is that he had no regrets about his treatment of Judge Ronnie White, Ambassador James Hormel, Bill Lann Lee, Judge Margaret Morrow, or any of the other Presidential nominees he opposed. Each of us has a duty to determine how we exercise our constitutional duty of advise and consent. As I said at the outset of this debate, strangely enough--or perhaps not so strangely--the Constitution is silent on the standard we should use in deciding how to fulfill our advise and consent duty. I have thought about this over the years, and I have come to the conclusion that it is testament to the wisdom of the framers because, in the end, those who elect us have the final say in whether they approve of how we conducted ourselves and, if they approve, of how we exercised our constitutional responsibilities. Some have argued that the issues that have arisen during this confirmation process have been generated out of thin air by advocacy groups or by Senators who oppose this nomination. In fact, these are the same issues upon which the voters of Missouri based their verdict on election day last November, an election Senator Ashcroft lost. John Ashcroft's actions toward Judge Ronnie White and his association with Southern Partisan magazine and Bob Jones University were hotly debated in Missouri. They were issues in his unsuccessful reelection campaign. The Kansas City Star noted in November 1999: A lot of Missourians are still struggling to understand why Sen. John Ashcroft took out Ronnie White. Rallies for Judge White were held in downtown St. Louis. Local groups circulated petitions calling for Senator Ashcroft to ``publicly retract'' his comments in Southern Partisan. At least one Missouri municipality passed a resolution asking Senator Ashcroft to ``cease the promotion of Jefferson Davis'' and other Confederate leaders in Southern Partisan, and they criticized his actions with respect to Judge White. Another Missouri city council passed a resolution asking Senator Ashcroft to apologize to Missouri residents for his comments in Southern Partisan. Yesterday, an old friend, a Republican, contacted me to share a quote from Reinhold Niebuhr: Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. In this regard, I note that we heard often about John Ashcroft's past election victories in Missouri. What has gone unmentioned is the fact that the voters of Missouri registered a negative judgment on the politics, policies, and practices of John Ashcroft just last November. Not surprisingly, they are the same issues that have arisen during his confirmation debate. We heard during our hearings how African American voters of Missouri had voted overwhelmingly against him. John Ashcroft's stubborn defense of his past record and the fact he has no regrets over incidents that concern many of his Missouri constituents and that now concern many Americans does not instill confidence. On the contrary, to many it is a troubling signal. He lacks the sensitivities and balance we need in the Attorney General. We need an Attorney General who has the trust and confidence of the American people and who is dedicated to protecting the rights of all of us. Remember, the Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. He has a White House counsel. The White House counsel is not required to come to the Senate for confirmation. The Attorney General is there for all of us--black, white, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican, no matter who we are. The American people are entitled to an Attorney General who is more than just a friend to many of us in the Senate, as John Ashcroft is a friend, and who promises more than just the bare minimum, that he will enforce the law. All Americans, whether they are part of the 100 Members of a Senate club, no matter what they may be, all Americans, the 280 million other Americans who do not serve here, are entitled to someone who will uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, who will respect the Congress and the courts, who will abide by decisions with which he disagrees, and enforce the law for all people regardless of politics. They are entitled to someone whose past record demonstrates that he or she knows how to exercise good judgment in wielding the enormous discretionary power of the Attorney General. I said before that we cannot judge John Ashcroft's heart, nor should we be able to, but we can examine his record. And running through that record are disturbing recurrent themes: Disrespect for Supreme Court precedents with which he disagrees; grossly intemperate criticism of judges with whom he disagrees--the ``ruffians in robes'' comment-- insensitivity and bad judgment on racial issues; and the use of distortions, secret holds, and ambushes to harm the careers of those whom he opposes or for political gain. I engaged in a colloquy yesterday with the senior Senator from Virginia during this confirmation process. Senator Warner is a dear and valued friend. We have been friends for decades. He observed that he thought the hearings and consideration by the Senate will result in John Ashcroft being a stronger, more deeply committed public servant. It is my fervent hope that John Ashcroft has come to understand the reasons that many of us are troubled by his record and troubled by the manner in which he responded to our concerns at the nomination hearing. I hope Senator Ashcroft better appreciates the concerns of the significant number of Americans who oppose this nomination. Public opinion polls show there are as many people opposed to the nomination as support it. For those who doubt the promise of American justice-- and, unfortunately, there are those in this country who do, for whatever reason--this nomination has not inspired confidence in the man nominated to head the U.S. Department of Justice. If John Ashcroft is to be confirmed, then he is going to have a lot of work to do to prove that the President's choice was a wise one, and that he will be the people's lawyer and defender of their rights--all the people. The country is sharply divided about this nomination, but so is the Senate. I wish the President had sent the Senate a nominee who would unite us and not divide us, but that did not happen. I hope the President knows--after this debate, and after this divisive election--the task of bringing the Nation together still lies ahead of us. I hope all of us will be able to help in that uniting. I think nothing I will ever do in my life will mean as much to me as serving in the Senate. I have served with 280 or so Senators, who have all been people I have admired and respected. I hope that after this nomination, and after this battle--however the vote comes out; I expect I know how it will come out--then the Senate will work together, on both sides of the aisle, with the new President, and with all members of his Cabinet, and with the new Attorney General, to start healing these wounds, to not just talk about bringing us together, but to actually do it. There are deep, deep concerns in the country about this nomination. I would suggest that every one of us--Republican and Democrat--have a long road ahead of us to bring those sides together, but on that long road we also have the responsibility to take that trip. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. In fact, I will add to that: In doing so, that it not impinge on the time reserved for the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY. I make it as a request because the time that the distinguished leader took went into that time.