Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that under the prior unanimous consent agreement the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl; and I each have 1 hour for the Teilborg nomination, and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has up to 3 hours, unless time is yielded back, is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate what my friend from Arizona said. And he is my friend. It has been my experience on the committee, even on issues that start out appearing to be partisan, that the Senator from Arizona has worked hard to remove that sense of partisanship. He and I have joined together on a number of pieces of legislation. I do not think he would object to the description as a conservative Republican and myself as a liberal Democrat, but we have both been pragmatic Senators in getting some very good pieces of legislation through. I mention that because he and I may well share a belief that there have been some times this year when it has become too partisan. I hope after the elections, no matter who is elected President and no matter what the numbers are in the House and the Senate, that a number of Senators who have had the experience of working together across the aisle will start off the year trying to find pieces of legislation we can do that will demonstrate to the country there are many Members of good will in both parties who do want what is best for this country. There will be issues, of course, where there are distinct party differences, but there are so many issues where there is far more unity. I hope we can do that. I thank the Senator for his kind words. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield another 3 minutes without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for his comments. Senator Edwards has been a friend since he came to this body. I have, at the risk of embarrassing him, stated on a number of occasions on this floor that the Senate was enhanced by his presence here. As a lawyer, I must say that having him here because of his own experience as one of the most outstanding and most recognized trial lawyers in the country, to say nothing about his own State. I think Senators on both sides of the aisle should listen to what he said. He is not a Senator who speaks in the abstract and who simply reads a statement on this. This is a Senator who has spent time in the courts of his State and of the region. He has had active practice in both State courts and Federal courts. He understands the judicial system. He has argued cases at all levels. He has worked with lawyers who have been on his side of an issue and opposed to him. He knows, as does any lawyer who practices law, that no matter how much you might try a case at the trial level, at some point, especially if the stakes are high, that case is going to go up on appeal. It is going to go up on appeal whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant. Whoever loses that case, if it is of significance, will take it up on appeal. I recall the statements made in court when I was trying cases. The judge in chambers would say: OK, we will take it to the jury and let justice be done. Usually the person who had the weaker case said: If that is the case, I will appeal, if justice is done. But the fact of matter is cases become more and more complex and more and more significant to the litigants and to the issues of law. They go up on appeal, and you ought to have a good appellate court. I commend the Senator for what he has said. I hope we will listen to what is needed in that appellate court. We should also note, I suggest, that there is going to be a significant debate tonight in Boston between the two candidates of our two great parties--the Republican and Democratic Parties. Both parties have nominated those we consider to be our best choices. Obviously, I strongly support my friend of over 20 years, Al Gore. But I also know that the Republican Party has nominated a very distinguished Governor, George W. Bush. I mention this because Governor Bush and I, while we disagree on some issues, have one very significant issue on which we agree. He gave a speech awhile back and criticized what has happened in the Senate where confirmations are held up not because somebody votes down a nominee but because they cannot ever get a vote. Governor Bush said: You have the nominee. Hold the hearing. Then, within 60 days, vote them up or vote them down. Don't leave them in limbo. Frankly, that is what we are paid to do in this body. We are paid to vote either yes or no--not vote maybe. When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and not taking any action one way or the other, we are not only voting ``maybe'' but we are doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do this. They have to put their life on hold. They do not know what is going to happen: Are they going to be confirmed, or not? It is not like when any one of us runs for election; we know that on a certain day the election occurs. We either win or we lose. But we know that on that Tuesday, we are going to know our fate. We won or we lost. These people come here and they never know what may happen. They don't know whether they will have a hearing. And if they have a hearing, they don't know if there will be a vote in committee. And if there is a vote in committee, they don't know whether they will come on the floor. And if they come on the floor, they don't know if they will have a vote because one person hiding in the Cloakroom will say: Don't allow it to come to a vote yet. So they may have 99 Senators voting for them but somebody mysteriously in the background says ``Don't vote,'' and they don't vote. Helene White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has been pending for 1,360 days. Governor Bush said we ought to have a vote up or down within 60 days. Let's have a vote on Helene White. She has been waiting not 60 days, not 600 days, but 1,360 days. Kathleen McCree Lewis, who has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an outstanding African American woman, who has one of highest ratings of anybody we have ever seen come before the Senate, has been waiting for 370 days. Not the 60 days we talked about, but more than six times the 60 days. Bonnie Campbell, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, has been spending for more than 215 days. We are debating bringing up the Violence Against Women Act which has been stalled. The Violence Against Women Act has expired. Distinguished Senators on both sides of the aisle are working to bring it up and we cannot bring it up for a vote. I see the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the distinguished Senator from Kansas, both of whom support it on the floor, and we cannot get that up for a vote. We also can't get Bonnie Campbell up, even though she is the Director of the Violence Against Women Office. She supported, worked for and administered the Violence Against Women Act, an act that has seen a dramatic decrease in violence against women. We ought to be standing and applauding Ms. Campbell. She is somebody who shows by her own experience that she can do the things necessary to bring down this scourge of violence against women in our country. Now that she has gone through the vetting process, and found out that she is one of the most qualified people to be a judge of anyone confirmed in the last 20 years, Republican or Democrat, we ought to at least let her have a vote instead of holding her in limbo. Elena Kagan for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has been pending for more than 480 days without a vote; Lynette Norton, for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has been pending for more than 890 days; Patricia Coan, for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, has been pending for more than 500 days; Dolly Gee, for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has been pending for more than 495 days; Rhonda C. Fields, for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has been pending for 325 days; Linda Riegle, for the U.S. District Court of Nevada, has been pending for more than 165 days. Let them have a vote. These women are outstanding. They have demonstrated more than most people who get confirmed in this body, Republican or Democrat, how well qualified they are. At least let them have a vote. If people want to vote against them, vote against them. I will state for the record that I will vote for every one of them. In checking with our side of the aisle, every single Democrat Senator will vote for every one of these women. President Clinton, in remarks before the Michigan Bar Association, recently spoke about the Senate's failure to act upon his judicial nominees, noting his nominees have received more top American Bar Association ratings than those of any President in 40 years. President Clinton, to his credit, has nominated people who have received higher ratings than any President, Democrat or Republican, in 40 years and they still get held up. He said: These people are highly qualified, which leads to only one conclusion, that the appointments process has been politicized in the hope of getting appointees ultimately to the bench who will be more political. That is wrong. It is a denial of justice. President Clinton is right. We should move forward with these nominees. Let them have a vote. Don't do this in the dark of the night holding people up. We are going to have four nominees, three from Arizona which has a desperate situation, where they need Federal judges. My friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, has pointed out, quite rightly, that cases cannot be heard, several cases cannot be heard. He has had experiences as a civil lawyer. He knows how difficult that is. I say as a former prosecutor, when that happens, the criminal cases can't be heard because you don't have enough people on the bench. When that happens, the prosecutor has to start plea bargaining down. He or she has to either get a lighter sentence or has to start dropping charges all over the place because they know they can't get a trial because the judges aren't there. If we are going to be tough on law and order, we have to have the judges there. We cannot just say we are against crime. I am willing to concede that all 100 of us are against crime. But if we are going to fight crime, we have to have the men and women there to do it: the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the judges. If we will move those judges through, I will vote for every one of them. But I also point out that they can move through very rapidly, all the judges from the time they were nominated, to the hearings, to the floor. A lot of the other judges discussed today are judicial nominees who have waited and waited and waited and waited and cannot get a vote. It is not too late in the session to move on these nominations. We know that we can make quick progress when we want to do so. The group of nominees being considered tonight include nominations received on a Friday, who had a hearing the next Wednesday and were reported that Thursday, all within a week. In addition, there is the example of a hearing held last month by the Government Affairs Committee on two District of Columbia Superior Court judges, one who was nominated on May 1 and the other who was nominated on June 26. Another example of the ability of the Senate to act is the September 8 confirmation of James E. Baker to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In addition, there is the examples of Timothy Lewis who was confirmed in waning days of the 1992 session, the last year of a Republican presidential term with a Democratic majority in the Senate. Judge Lewis was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 8, having only been nominated on September 17 of that year. Of course, the Republican candidate for the presidency has said that nominations should be acted upon within 60 days. Of the 42 judicial nominations currently pending, 37 have been pending from 60 days to 4 years without final action. Let us compare the lack of action this year to what a Democratic majority in the Senate accomplished in 1992 during the last year of a Republican presidential term. The Senate confirmed 11 Court of Appeals nominees during that Republican President's last year in office and a total of 66 judges for that year. This year the Senate is will not reach anywhere near 66 confirmations, not 60, not 50, not even 40. In 1992, the Committee held 15 hearings--twice as many as this Committee has found time to hold this year. In the last 10 weeks of the 1992 session, the Committee held four hearings and all of the nominees who had hearings then were confirmed before adjournment. In the last 10 weeks of the 1992 session, we confirmed 32 judicial nominations. In the last 10 weeks of this year we will be holding no hearings and confirming only four District Court nominees. We still have pending without a hearing qualified nominees like Judge Helene White of Michigan. She has been held hostage for over 45 months without a hearing. She is the record holder for a judicial nominee who has had to wait the longest for a hearing and her wait continues without explanation to this day. We still have pending before the Committee, the nomination of Bonnie Campbell to the Eighth Circuit. Ms Campbell had her hearing last May, but the Committee refuses to consider her nomination, vote her up or vote her down. Instead, there is the equivalent of an anonymous and unexplained secret hold. Bonnie Campbell is a distinguished lawyer, public servant and law enforcement officer. She was the Attorney General for the State of Iowa and the Director of the Violence Against Women Office at the United States Department of Justice. And she enjoys the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley. I understand and share Senator Harkin's frustration and believe that the Senate's failure to act on this highly qualified nominee is without justification. We still have pending without a hearing the nomination of Roger Gregory of Virginia and Judge James Wynn of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit. Were either of these highly-qualified jurists confirmed by the Senate, we would be finally acting to allow a qualified African American to sit on that Court for the first time. Fifty years has passed since the confirmation of Judge Hastie to the Third Circuit and still there has never been an African-American on the Fourth Circuit in the history of that Circuit. The nomination of Judge James A. Beatty, Jr., was previously sent to us by President Clinton in 1995. That nomination was never considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate and was returned to President Clinton without action at the end of 1998. It is time for the Senate to act on a qualified African- American nominee to the Fourth Circuit. It is also time for the Senate to act on the nomination of Kathleen McCree Lewis to be the first African American woman to serve on the Sixth Circuit. President Clinton spoke powerfully about these matters at the NAACP Convention. We should respond not be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said but, instead, by taking action on these well-qualified nominees. I commend Senators Robb and Warner, along with Representatives Bobby Scott and Jim Clyburn, for speaking out last Wednesday to draw attention to the Senate's failure to act upon the nomination of Roger Gregory to fill an emergency vacancy in the Fourth Circuit. As Senator Robb pointed out, Mr. Gregory has been nominated to fill a vacancy that has existed on the Fourth Circuit for 10 years. While the Court is authorized to have 15 judges, it is operating with only 10 judges today. That means the Court has one-third of its positions vacant. Beth Nolan, the Counsel to the President, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: [T]he seat for which Mr. Gregory was nominated has not been filed before, nor allocated to any particular state in the Fourth Circuit. Moreover, Roger Gregory has the strong support of both of his home-state senators (who were indeed consulted prior to nomination). Democratic Sen. Chuck Robb recommended Mr. Gregory to the president and has been working tirelessly on Mr. Gregory's behalf. Republican Sen. John Warner has joined Sen. Robb in requesting that Sen. Hatch give Mr. Gregory a hearing. It is past time for the Judiciary Committee to consider Mr. Gregory's nomination. We still have pending before the Committee the nomination of Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit. He is the latest in a succession of outstanding Hispanic nominees by President Clinton to that Court, but he too is not being considered by the Committee or the Senate. Mr. Moreno succeeded to the nomination of Jorge Rangel on which the Senate refused to act last Congress. These are well-qualified nominees who will add to the capabilities and diversity of those courts. In fact, the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared that a judicial emergency exists on that court, caused by the number of judicial vacancies, the lack of Senate action on pending nominations, and the overwhelming workload. I remain vigilant regarding the Senate's treatment of nominees who are women or minorities. I have said that I do not regard the Chairman as a biased person. I have also been outspoken in my concern about the manner in which we are failing to consider qualified minority and women nominees over the last several years. From Margaret Morrow, Margaret McKeown and Sonia Sotomayor, through Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, and including Judge James Beatty, Jr., Judge James Wynn, Roger Gregory, Enrique Moreno and all the other qualified women and minority nominees who have been delayed and opposed over the last several years, I have spoken out. The Senate will never remove the blot that occurred last October when the Republican Senators emerged from a Republican Caucus to vote lockstep against Justice Ronnie White to be a Federal District Court Judge in Missouri. At a Missouri Bar Association forum last week, Justice White expressed concern that the rejection of his nominations to a federal judgeship will have a ``chilling effect'' on the desire of young African American lawyers to seek to enter the judiciary. The Senate took the wrong action last October when the Republican caucus rejected Justice White's nomination. At our last Executive Business Session in the Judiciary Committee, the Chairman used some of Senator Biden's remarks from a nominations hearing last November to make the point that he is neither racist nor sexist. And I agree. I do not believe that the Chairman is himself for or against a particular nominee based purely on race or gender, though I do understand that the Committee does keep track of such numbers for statistical purposes. But to paraphrase our former Chairman from later on in that Executive Business Session, it would be better for the current Chairman to explain to those of us on this side of the aisle and the public at large why he is not moving on particular nominations. I understand there may be outstanding FBI investigations that he is not at liberty to discuss, but I do not believe any such impediments exist that would prevent the Chairman from telling us why Helene White, Roger Gregory, and Enrique Moreno have not yet had a hearing. There continue to be multiple vacancies on the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. With 23 current vacancies, our appellate courts have nearly half of the total judicial emergency vacancies in the federal court system. I note that the vacancy rate for our Courts of Appeals is more than 11 percent nationwide. If we were to take into account the additional appellate judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, a bill that was requested by the Judicial Conference to handle their increased workloads, the vacancy rate would be 16 percent. Also at our last executive business session, my friend from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis. That is a bold statement considering there are 67 current vacancies in courts and emergency situations, including the Fifth Circuit. If we pass the bill that has been requested by the nonpartisan judicial conference, we would have another 7 or more judicial vacancies, so we would have over 150 judicial vacancies. The chairman went on to say that since 363 senior judges are now serving in the Federal judiciary the true number of vacancies is ``less than zero.'' While it is true that there are 363 senior judges now serving, it is inaccurate to say that the true number of vacancies is less than zero. I commend the large number of senior judges for coming in to help out and fill in. Some of them are well into their eighties. But that is not the way it should be. Surely, if we didn't have these senior judges, the courts would collapse under the weight of their own caseloads and the extended and extensive vacancies. What we have is a situation where selfless public servants have made a conscious decision to hold off on the rewards of retiring from a job well done to help administer fair and proper justice in our country. Our senior judges should be thanked for their diligent work and dedication. Still, their service does not mean we have fewer vacancies. Indeed, the Judicial Conference has recommended 70 new judgeships in addition to the already existing 67 vacancies. Let's not say the only way that can happen is if people, no matter how old they are, say: I will never retire; I will just keep on showing up and do the best I can. It is the lifeblood of our judiciary to have new judges come in. I regret that the last confirmation hearing for Federal judges held by the Judiciary Committee was in July. In fact, that was the last time the Judiciary Committee reported any nominees to the full Senate. Throughout August, September, and now the first week in October, there have been no additional hearings held, or even noticed; no executive business meetings have included any judicial nominees on the agenda. I mention that because in 1992, the last year of the Bush administration, we had a Republican President and a Democratic majority in the Senate. We held three confirmation hearings in August and September. We continued to work to confirm judges. How late did we work, even though we have the so-called Thurmond rule which cuts off judicial nominations after about midyear? Do you know how long the Democrat-controlled Senate was confirming judges for a Republican President? Up to and including the very last day of the session; not up to and including 6 months before the session ended. I know there is some frustration. Some Senators have objected to Senate committees continuing to meet on other matters while the Senate is in session. That is partly because the matter is so acute with regard to the numerous vacancies in our court of appeals and the qualified women and men who have been nominated and stalled. The chairman says, and he holds the banner for his party, that Democrats have no grounds to complain. I remind the Senate of the hoops that Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon had to jump through in order to get a vote, including the extraordinary step of overcoming a motion to postpone indefinitely the vote on Marsha Berzon. So I hope we will continue to meet our responsibility to all nominees--men, women, and minorities. As long as the Senate is in session, I am going to urge action. Highly qualified nominees should not be delayed. The Senate should join with the President to confirm well-qualified, diverse, and fair-minded nominees to fulfill the needs of the Federal courts around the country. I see my friend from Arizona on the floor. I have spoken somewhat longer than I suggested to him that I would. I apologize for that, but I hope he will take some comfort from the fact that as I said at the beginning of my talk that I would vote for the nominees from his State, including one who has been a long-time friend of his. I am going to be urging Members on this side to do so. I can say with some certitude, all four will be confirmed. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe I also have an hour under another part of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been scarcely able to hold back the tears listening to my good friend from Utah. I am sure he did not mean to mislead the Senate, but those who might not know the numbers could be misled, not by any intent on the part of the senior Senator from Utah. As he has said himself, we will have confirmed fewer than 40 judges in the last year of President Clinton's term in office. When the Democrats controlled the Senate, in the last year of President Bush's term in office, we confirmed 66. In fact, we were holding hearings right into September and voting on judges up to the last days of the session, confirming judges for President Bush. The distinguished Senator from Utah feels perhaps some have suggested inappropriately that women, minorities, and others take longer going through this body. I point out that the ones who suggested that have been independent bipartisan groups outside the Senate. I have stated over and over, I have never seen or heard a statement expressing--I wonder if the Senator from Utah can stay while I speak; I do not want to say this with him off the floor--I have never once heard him express either a racist or a sexist remark. He has been a close and dear friend of mine for over 20 years. Nor have I ever suggested that anybody on the Senate Judiciary Committee has taken a racist or sexist position, but I am troubled, as I hope he and others would be troubled, by the fact that women and minorities, if they are nominated for judgeships, have taken longer to go through this Republican-controlled Senate than others if they are allowed to go through at all. We talk about Roger Gregory, nominated to the Fourth Circuit. It has been suggested this is a seat that is reserved to North Carolina. That is not so. As pointed out in the Wall Street Journal in a recent letter from the President's Counsel Beth Nolan, this is a vacant seat that has not been allocated to the State of North Carolina and is appropriate for an appointment from Virginia. The distinguished chairman of the committee has said that Senators should work with the White House. In this case, two of the most distinguished Members of the Senate--one a Republican, one a Democrat, John Warner and Chuck Robb--worked very closely with the White House on this Virginia nomination and both support the nomination of Roger Gregory. Senator Robb strongly urged the White House to appoint Roger Gregory, a highly distinguished African American. Senator Warner supports him. He has the highest ratings possible from bar associations. But he cannot get confirmed by the Senate; he cannot even get a hearing. I commend what Senator Robb said on the floor today in support of Roger Gregory. I hope all of us will listen to him. Likewise, I was struck by the remarks of Senator Durbin of Illinois with respect to the Supreme Court and his support for Michael Reagan to a district court judgeship in Illinois. Senator Durbin laid out what I have also heard from Republicans and Democrats who support Michael Reagan for that judgeship. Democrats and Republicans were at hearings for him. Democrats and Republicans, ranging across the political spectrum, have spoken to me in support of Michael Reagan. He is supported by both home state Senators, one a Republican and one a Democrat. Senator Carl Levin, the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, one of the most respected voices in this body, spoke of his support for Judge Helene White to the Sixth Circuit and Kathleen McCree Lewis to the Sixth Circuit and how he wished they would be considered. They have been held up and blocked by this Senate. Is the chairman saying that Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis do not have the support of their two Senators from Michigan? If that is the case, we ought to know that. I understand that they both have that support. If they don't have the support of a home state Senator, then let's say that. Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis are extraordinarily well-qualified women. I wish they would get confirmed. Senator Tom Harkin, was an extraordinary advocate for Bonnie Campbell. I can't add to what he has said. Senator Harkin spoke extremely well about Bonnie Campbell and, of course, Bonnie Campbell should be confirmed. Again, going to the test: Did the President work with the Senators from that State. Are we saying that the two Senators from Iowa do not support Bonnie Campbell? My understanding is both of them support her. Why can't she get Committee consideration and a Senate vote? The Senate will move forward on a number of nominees today: Michael Reagan, Susan Ritchie Bolton, Mary Helen Murguia, and James Teilborg. I recommend that all four be confirmed by the Senate. It is unfortunate that this Republican-controlled Senate, is not willing to do for President Bill Clinton what a Democratic-controlled Senate did for President George Bush, and move people forward. We can talk about the numbers that various Presidents have appointed. Recent Presidents have appointed more judges than George Washington did or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. But we are also a much bigger country, and we have a lot more cases and need more judges. In fact, if we passed the judgeship bill the distinguished senior Senator from Utah and I have introduced, the vacancy rate would be well into the teens with over 130 vacancies. We have waited 10 years to authorize new judges, even as this country has expanded over the years and caseloads have grown. The Judicial Conference is asking us to authorize 70 judges. In fact, I strongly urge we pass the judgeship bill before the Presidential election while no one knows who is going to be elected President, and we are looking at what is best for our court system. I am glad to see the Senate moving forward on these three nominees. I expect they will be approved overwhelmingly. They are all well qualified for appointment to the federal courts. Three judicial nominees on the Senate calendar have been cleared by Democrats for action for some time, including two from Arizona and one from Illinois who has been pending the longest of the four. There were Senators who wanted to be heard and have a chance to debate the lack of hearings and the refusal to give hearings to qualified nominees. They have spoken eloquently on behalf of Roger Gregory, Bonnie Campbell and Judge Helene White. They are not seeking to filibuster these nominations and each has agreed to a reasonable time for debate before a vote. The Senator from Arizona is right that there has been a problem with the nomination of James Teilborg, who happens to be a close personal friend of the Senator since their days together back at the University of Arizona Law School. Mr. Teilborg was nominated on July 21 and was afforded a hearing and was reported by the Judiciary Committee within a week. The frustration that many Senators feel with the lack of attention the Committee has shown long-pending judicial nominees has recently boiled over. They wish to be heard; they seek parity and similar treatment for nominees they support. I understand their frustration and have been urging action for some time. This could all have been easily avoided if we were continuing to move judicial nominations like Democrats did in 1992, when we held hearings in September and confirmed 66 judges that presidential election year. Michael Reagan, nominated to be a District Court Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, is a distinguished private attorney in Belleville, Illinois. He graduated from Bradley University in 1976, and St. Louis University Law School in 1980. He has been in private practice for over 20 years, and has been an adjunct professor of law at Belleville Area College and St. Louis University. He also presently serves as an Assistant Public Defender in St. Clair County, Illinois. He enjoys the support of both of his home state Senators. When other nominees to the Illinois federal courts were given hearings and confirmed in June, he was held back. He had likewise been nominated in early May. He was finally included in a hearing in late July and reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on July 27. He could have been confirmed before the August recess or at any time in September. I am glad that time has finally come. Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton has presided in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County since 1989. She received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Iowa. Following law school she clerked for the Honorable Laurence T. Wren on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She then went into private practice at Shimmel, Hill, Bishop & Bruender. She enjoys the support of both of her home state Senators and received a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. She was nominated on July 21, participated in a confirmation hearing on July 25 and was unanimously reported by the Judiciary committee on July 27. She could have been confirmed before the August recess or at any time in September. I am glad the Senate is turning its attention to her nomination and am confident that she will be confirmed to fill the judicial emergency vacancy for which she was nominated. Mary Murguia currently serves as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. She also serves as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant District Attorney for the Wyandotte County District Attorney's Office. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Kansas. She enjoys the full support of both of her home state Senators. Like Judge Bolton, she was nominated on July 21, received a hearing on July 25 and was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee on July 27. She could have been confirmed before the August recess or at any time in September. I know that the Senate will now do the right thing and confirm her to fill the judicial emergency vacancy for which she was nominated. I thank the Majority Leader and commend the Democratic Leader for scheduling the consideration of these judicial nominations. I wish there were many more being considered to fill the 67 current vacancies and eight on the horizon. I wish that we were making progress on the Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, S. 3071, and authorizing the 70 judgeships affected by that legislation as requested by the Judicial Conference. I heard Senator Hatch argue last week that the vacancies on the federal judiciary are ``less than zero''. While I marvel at the audacity of such argument, it moves us no closing to fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to the federal judiciary. Likewise the notion that the refusal by some to waive the Senate's 2-hour rule in late September somehow preventing the Committee from holding additional confirmation hearings in early September or now is hardly compelling. I wish the Committee and the Senate would have followed the model established in 1992 and continued holding hearings and reporting judicial nominees in August and September. That simply did not happen and despite my requests no additional hearings were held. This year we held about half as many hearings as in 1992. Despite all of our efforts we have been unable to get the Judiciary Committee to consider the nominations of Bonnie Campbell or Allen Snyder or Fred Woocher following their hearings. The debate on judicial nominations over the last several years has included too much delay with respect to too many nominations. The most prominent current examples of that treatment are Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell, Roger Gregory, and Enrique Moreno. With respect to these nominations, the Senate has for too long refused to do its constitutional duty and vote. Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch--not delayed for two or three or four years. The nomination of Judge White has now been pending for over four years, the longest pending nomination without a hearing in Senate history. Of course it is every Senator's right to vote as he or she sees fit on all matters. But I would hope that in the cases of these long- pending nominations, those who have opposed them will show them the courtesy of using this time to discuss with us any concerns they may have and to explain the basis for their anonymous holds and the Senate's refusals to act. It was only a couple of years ago when the Chief Justice of the United States chastised this Senate for refusing to vote up or down on judicial nominations after a reasonable period for review. This Senate continues to reject his wisdom and, in my view, our duty. It is my hope the Senate will confirm all four district court nominees on the Senate calendar. I know there are Senators who want a chance to debate the lack of hearings and the refusal to give hearings to qualified nominees. I understand that frustration, and it is justifiable, especially as it is not the way the Democrats acted when they controlled the Senate with a Republican President. The nominee from Illinois should have been confirmed some time ago. The nominees from Arizona have zipped through here faster than the Republican leadership has allowed most judges to go through. When Senators supporting nominations, received months and years before, see newer nominees zip through, they are, of course, frustrated. The Judiciary Committee has reported only three nominees to the court of appeals all year. We have held hearings without even including a nominee to the court of appeals. We have denied a committee vote to two outstanding nominees who have succeeded in getting hearings; namely, Bonnie Campbell and Allen Snyder. You have to understand the frustration of Senators and those outside the Senate who know that Roger Gregory and Helene White and Bonnie Campbell and Kathleen McCree Lewis and others should have been considered by the Judiciary Committee and voted on by the Senate. On September 14, Senators Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Harkin, and Carl Levin and Representative Carolyn Maloney from the other body, highlighted the Senate's failure to act on judicial nominations to the Federal bench. They called on the Senate leadership to consider qualified women before the Congress adjourned. They also discussed the problems of judicial emergencies, the length of time it takes women and people of color to be confirmed, and how the Federal courts do not currently reflect the diversity of our country. I do not recall them or anybody else ascribing motives to those who are holding up these people. Rather, they were saying in a diverse country such as ours, the Federal court should reflect the diversity of our country. They focused on the following women who have been waiting more than 60 days for confirmation: Helene White, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has been pending more than 1,360 days; Kathleen McCree Lewis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has been pending more than 370 days; Bonnie Campbell, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, has been pending more than 215 days; Elena Kagen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been pending for more than 480 days; Lynette Norton, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has been pending more than 890 days; Patricia Coan, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, has been pending more than 500 days; Dolly Gee, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, has been pending more than 495 days; Rhonda Fields, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has been pending more than 325 days; and Linda Riegle, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, has been pending more than 165 days. That is why these Senators and this Member of Congress made the statement we did. Mr. President, am I correct in understanding that under the previous order, we are to recess at 12:30?

Mr. LEAHY. Then I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. I will withhold that and yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side of the aisle?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that each of the component parts of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act were filed long before July 25. Democratic Senators repeatedly asked for hearings on this proposal, and those requests were repeatedly denied. It is not fair to say that this legislation is neither ``Latino'' nor ``fair.'' If anybody wants to know whether it is something that the Latino community wants and whether the Latino community thinks it is fair, just ask them. They will tell you the Latino fairness bill is supported by the Latino community and it is a fair bill. I do thank my chairman, my close friend, that we are getting this through.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to once again ask the majority to immediately bring S. 2787, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, VAWA II, to the floor for a vote. Yesterday the President wrote to the Majority Leader urging passage of VAWA II this week. This is a top priority not only for the Administration but for the Nation. The President wrote: ``The Senate should not delay, and I urge you to pass a freestanding version of the Biden-Hatch VAWA reauthorization bill this week. The women and families whose lives have been scarred by domestic violence deserve nothing less than immediate action by the Congress.'' The President is right. This Tuesday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 415 to 3. I commend the House for finally acting on this important legislation. Many of us have been urging Senate action on legislation to reauthorize and improve the Violence Against Women Act for months. We have been stymied by the Republican leadership. I also would like to thank my friend Senator Joe Biden, for his leadership on this issue. He has been a champion for victims of domestic violence for many years. He was pivotal in the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act almost a decade ago. He has been tireless in his efforts this year. It is time for the Senate to take up S. 2787, review and accept the consensus substitute and move to final passage. It could be done this week--today. Senator Biden has offered to proceed on a clean bill within 10 minutes and he is right. I regret to have to remind the Senate that the authorization for the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, expires at the end of this week on Saturday, September 30, 2000. This is outrageous. This should be consensus legislation, bipartisan legislation. With a straight up or down vote I have no doubt that our bill will pass overwhelmingly. Playing partisan or political games with this important legislation is the wrong thing to do and this is the wrong time to be playing such games. ``Gotcha'' games have no place in this debate or with this important matter. The Violence Against Women Act II is not leverage or fodder but important legislation with 71 Senate cosponsors. There is and has been no objection on the Democratic side of the aisle to passing VAWA II. Unfortunately, there have been efforts by the majority party to attach this uncontroversial legislation to the ``poison pill'' represented by the version of bankruptcy legislation currently being advanced by Republicans and to other matters. I received today a letter from the Pat Ruess of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund that emphatically makes the point the VAWA is not ``cover'' for other legislation that hurts women. She is right. The bankruptcy bill as the Republicans have designed it is opposed by the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Women's Law Center, the American Association of University Women and dozens of women's organization across the country. I hope that the rumors of such an effort by the Republican leadership will prove unfounded and that no such cynical pairing will be attempted. It is destined to fail and only delays and distracts the Senate from what we should be doing--passing VAWA II. I believe the Senate can and should pass VAWA II as a clean, stand- alone bill, without further delay. That is what Senator Biden urged Tuesday. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, almost one-third of women murdered each year are killed by a husband or boyfriend. In 1998, women experience about 900,000 violent offenses at the hands of an intimate partner. The only good news about this staggering number is that it is lower than that of previous years when the number of violent offenses was well past 1 million. I have no doubt this drop in the numbers of victims of domestic violence is due to the success of the programs of the Violence Against Women Act. We should be working to lower that number even further by reauthorizing and expanding the programs of VAWA. The country has come too far in fighting this battle against domestic violence to risk losing it because the Senate does not pass VAWA II or someone wanting to score clever, political points for short term partisan gain. There is no reason to make this a political battle. We must act now. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the President's letter and the September 28 letter from the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and a September 17, 1999 letter from the National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center and other women's advocacy organizations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the Federal Judiciary Protection Act finally being acted on by the Senate today. In the last Congress, 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 our Federal judiciary. Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to Federal judges, law enforcement officers and their families. Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or interference with a Federal judge or law enforcement officer 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 or law enforcement officer 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 judiciary and other law enforcement agencies. But, unfortunately, we are seeing more violence and threats of violence against officials of our Federal government. For example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was firebombed last year, 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 or law enforcement officer. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned with more and more threats of harm to our judges and law enforcement officers. 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 has been 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 law enforcement 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 and other law enforcement officials, to remind everyone that these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection. I urge the House of Representatives to pass the Federal Judiciary Protection Act and look forward to its swift enactment into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this bill addresses a critically important issue: the preservation of our visa waiver program. I am a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, and I strongly recommend the passage of H.R. 3767. This legislation will achieve the important goal of making our visa waiver program permanent. We have had a visa waiver pilot project for more than a decade, and it has been a tremendous success in allowing residents of some of our most important allies to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa, and in allowing American citizens to travel to those countries without visas. Countries must meet a number of requirements to participate in the program, including having extraordinarily low rates of visa refusals. Of course, the visa waiver does not affect the need for international travelers to carry valid passports. The pilot project expired on April 30, and I had sought passage of S. 2367, which is incorporated into the bill we consider today, before that expiration date. Indeed, I encouraged the discharge of this bill from the Judiciary Committee in April so that the Senate could act upon this highly time-sensitive matter. Unfortunately, this bill was instead held hostage to other issues. Fortunately, the Administration extended the program administratively until the end of May, but despite my best efforts we failed to meet that deadline as well. As a result, the program was extended until the end of June, but once again the Senate did not meet the deadline. The Administration then extended the program through July, sparing thousands of American tourists and international business travelers tremendous inconvenience and cost during the busy summer traveling season. Before the August recess, we once again failed to act on this legislation, forcing the Administration to extend it again. It is now well past time to end this charade, pass this bill, and send it back to the House for its final approval. Rather than simply pass another extension of the pilot program, it is time to make this program permanent--it has stood the test of time for well over a decade. In order to address any security concerns about making the program permanent, the requirements placed upon participating countries have been tightened. Indeed, countries wishing to participate in the visa waiver program must meet each of the following four criteria: the participating country must allow U.S. citizens to travel without a visa; the country must have a nonimmigrant refusal rate for B-1/B-2 visitor visas at U.S. consulates that is low, averaging less than 2 percent the previous two full fiscal years, with the refusal rate less than 2.5 percent in either year, or less than 3 percent the previous full fiscal year; the country must already possess or be in the process of developing a machine-readable passport program; and, the Attorney General must conclude that entry into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program will not compromise U.S. law enforcement interests. The visa waiver program provides substantial benefits to both the American tourism industry and to Americans traveling abroad. I urge the Senate to make it permanent. Although I am a strong supporter of the bill, I must speak out against the amendment that has been inserted into the bill by Senator Helms. This amendment states that under a certain paragraph of this bill, no court will have jurisdiction to review any visa refusal based on race, sex, or disability. It is my understanding that this provision has no practical effect, since affected foreign nationals would not be able to bring such a claim in an American court in the first place. Because it is effectively a dead letter, and because of the importance of the visa waiver program and other amendments to this bill, I have chosen not to assert rights and deny unanimous consent. But this provision is offensive to our legal traditions. I have consistently opposed attempts to strip courts of authority to resolve immigration matters, and I am particularly opposed to such attempts where the stripping is directed specifically toward claims asserting discrimination. Judicial review is a critical part of American law, and we should not be impinging upon it--symbolically or otherwise. Finally, passage of this bill should not be misinterpreted as a signal that this Congress has dealt fairly or adequately with immigration issues. There is still so much to do in the little time we have left, from passing the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act--to dealing with the aftereffects of the immigration legislation this Congress passed in 1996. In particular, I would call again for hearings on S. 1940, the Refugee Protection Act. This is a bill I introduced with Senator Brownback and a number of other Senators that would undo the damage that has been done to our asylum process by the implementation of expedited removal. I believe it, like so many immigration issues that have been ignored for the last 21 months, deserves the attention of this Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill as important as the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act, which would restore a number of the due process rights that were taken away by the passage in 1996 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). With those laws, we turned our back on our historical commitment to immigration and the rule of law. It is long past time to undo the damage that was done then, and this bill provides an excellent foundation for such important change. First, this bill would eliminate the retroactive effects of the 1996 laws. Those laws not only contained new and overly harsh provisions calling for increased deportations for minor offenses, it applied those new provisions retroactively. Under those laws, immigrants who may have committed a crime years before and had since gone on to live productive lives suddenly faced removal from the United States. Some had plead guilty to minor offenses--many of which did not even require jail time--with the understanding that such a plea would have no effect on their immigration status. And that was true at the time. But suddenly, with the passage of this law, they face removal and are not even allowed to apply for relief. They receive no due process, despite the fact that they have American families and legal immigration status. This part of our immigration law simply must be changed. I have previously introduced legislation that would at least provide noncitizen veterans of our Armed Forces the right to due process before being removed for past offenses under these laws--the Fairness to Immigrant Veterans Act (S. 871). This bill has the support of the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and other veterans' groups. It is unconscionable that those who served our country would be forced to leave it for a crime they committed 20 years ago, under a different immigration law regime, without even receiving the chance to convince a judge that they deserve the opportunity to stay. But in truth, this country should not treat any immigrant in that way, and I welcome a total eradication of the retroactivity provisions of these laws. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act also refines the definition of ``aggravated felony'' that was itself altered in the 1996 legislation. This redefinition will ensure that immigrants who commit relatively minor offenses will not be classified as aggravated felons and precluded from all relief from deportation. Current law is unfair even when it is not applied retroactively, and we must fight to restore the concept of judicial review in our immigration law. The United States has historically been committed to the idea that people should be judged as individuals, and that we are just to impose penalties-- whether they be criminal penalties or severe civil measures such as removal--because we have considered them carefully. We must return to that historical commitment. The bill will also return the definition of ``crimes involving moral turpitude'' to the pre-1996 definition of that term. Before the 1996 laws were passed, an immigrant had to have been sentenced to a year in prison for a crime involving moral turpitude to be deportable. Today, any crime that could lead to a sentence of a year--even if a judge decides to impose no sentence whatsoever--qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude. A one-year prison term requirement makes sense and could prevent great unfairness. Our immigration law should respect the decisions of judges and juries, not seek to undermine them. This bill also touches on an area that I have worked on extensively-- expedited removal. Expedited removal allows low-level INS officers with cursory supervision to return people who enter the United States to their home countries without opportunity for review. Although those who say they fear returning are given the opportunity for a credible fear hearing, there is ample evidence that that protection is insufficient to help those who have learned to fear authority in their native lands, or those whose grasp of English is halting or nonexistent. Senator Brownback and I last year introduced S. 1940, the Refugee Protection Act, which would restrict the use of expedited removal to immigration emergencies, as certified by the Attorney General. I have been greatly disappointed that the Judiciary Committee has not scheduled a hearing on this bipartisan bill. I hope that we can still take action in this Congress to resolve this critical human rights issue. Meanwhile, I strongly support this bill's provision to restrict the use of expedited removal to our ports of entry. The INS has recently begun implementing expedited removal inside the United States. I believe an expansion of this program is inappropriate, considering the bipartisan movement in Congress to reevaluate its existence even at our ports of entry. This bill will limit expedited removal's growth while we continue our efforts to restrict its use altogether. I would also like to note this bill's restoration of the authority of federal courts to review INS decisions. Portions of this authority were stripped in both 1996 bills, a move I opposed at the time and continue to oppose today. Congress should not be in the business of micromanaging the federal docket, especially in politically sensitive areas such as immigration law. We should restore the pre-1996 status quo and give federal courts back the power we improvidently removed in the midst of the anti-immigration movement that seized this Congress. I have highlighted only some of the excellent provisions in this bill today. This legislation also contains good provisions addressing the detention of immigrants, and allowing immigrants who have already been deported under the 1996 laws to reopen their cases. We cannot be content simply to fix these problems while ignoring those who have already been harmed by them. Rather, we must find a way to rectify the situations of those who have been treated unfairly over the last four years. Although it is late in this Congress, there is a real opportunity for action on these issues. The House has already passed bipartisan legislation eliminating some of the retroactive effects of the 1996 laws. That legislation is not comprehensive enough in my view, but it is a good start, and it shows that members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the effects--perhaps unintended--of those laws. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Graham for their hard and consistent work on these issues. I am happy to be able to join with them and I hope that we can work together to gain attention for this bill, and convince our colleagues and the Administration that these are changes that need to be made this year.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Windfall Oil Profits for Heating Assistance Act of 2000 is a bit of a mouthful, but let me explain what this does. My legislation imposes a windfall profits adjustment on the oil industry so we can fund heating help for consumers and small business owners across America. Mr. President, while American families have been paying sky-high prices at the gas pump and are bracing for record-high home heating costs this winter, the oil industry is savoring phenomenal profits. Something is wrong when working families are struggling to pay for basic transportation and home heat while Big Oil rakes in obscene amounts of cash by the barrel. Indeed, the overall net income for the 14 major petroleum companies more than doubled in the second quarter of 2000 relative to the second quarter of 1999, to $10.3 billion. In the second quarter of 2000, BP Amoco PLC reported profits of $2.87 billion, Chevron Corporation reported profits of $1.14 billion, Conoco reported profits of $460 million, Exxon Mobil Corporation reported profits of $4.53 billion, Marathon Oil Company reported profits of $367 million, Phillips Petroleum Company reported profits of $439 million, Royal Dutch/Shell Group reported profits of $3.15 billion and Texaco, Inc. reported profits of $641 million. Look at these huge profits. When people in Vermont and New England want to know why they are paying so much extra for home heating oil, pick up the phone and call Texas and ask them how they justify these huge windfall profits. This chart illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry. Keep in mind, these profits came as gasoline prices soared and heating oil stocks fell. The oil industry executives said: It is the people of OPEC. It is not our fault. We love our customers. We are your friends. We wouldn't raise these prices. It is the naughty people overseas. We are not making any money from this. We are sorry you have to pay so much more to commute to work. We are sorry you can't heat your home. In my State, where it can drop down to 20 below zero, this is not a matter of comfort. It is a matter of whether you will live or not. But the oil industry executives say: We are sorry you have to pay so much more. Gee, maybe you should fill up early. Stocks are low. It is not our fault. We are not making anything out of this. We are not making any money out of it. They are liars. They are making money. They are making windfall profits. I have a chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry for the past year when gasoline prices soared and heating oil stocks fell. Compared to the second quarter of 1999, the profits in the second quarter of 2000 increased 133 percent for BP Amoco, 136 percent for Chevron, 205 percent for Conoco, 123 percent for Exxon Mobil, 208 percent for Marathon, 275 percent for Phillips, 96 percent for Shell and 124 percent for Texaco. Not surprisingly, these multi-million and even multi-billion dollar profits in the second quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and Shell were record quarterly profits. These gushering profits are not new for the oil industry in 2000. In the first quarter of 2000, Big Oil also reaped record profits. In the first quarter of 2000, ARCO reported profits of $333 million, BP Amoco reported profits of $2.68 billion, Chevron reported profits of $1.10 billion, Conoco reported profits of $391 million, Exxon Mobil reported profits of $3.35 billion, Phillips reported profits of $250 million, Shell reported profits of $3.13 billion, and Texaco reported profits of $602 million. I have a second chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry for the first quarter of the past year. Compared to the first quarter of 1999, the profits in the first quarter of 2000 increased 136 percent for ARCO, 296 percent for BP Amoco, 291 percent for Chevron , 371 percent for Conoco, 108 percent for Exxon Mobil, 257 percent for Phillips, 117 percent for Shell and 473 percent for Texaco. Again, these multi-million and multi-billion dollar profits in the first quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and Shell were record quarterly profits. Yet these same oil company executives can tell the people of Vermont, the Northeast and elsewhere: Sorry you have to pay so much more for your gasoline. Sorry you have to pay so much more for your home heating oil. It is not our fault. We are not making any profits. It is those mean people in the Middle East. Man, what hypocrisy. Somebody once said, in Vermont: We will rely on the facts. Vermonters are not fooled by this. But how frustrating it is for all of us, how frustrating it is for middle America, to pay these bills, feeling they are helpless. Because the fact comes down, in our State, in an extraordinarily cold winter, we have to have heat. The fact comes down, when men and women have to go to work and they have to commute, they have to pay the price of going there. Everybody expects to pay what it costs to live. But they do not expect to have to pay windfall profits for a cartel of companies. Big Oil reaped record profits while American consumers and small business owners dug deeper into their pockets to pay for soaring gasoline prices. And more record profits for Big Oil at the expense of consumers and small business owners are expected this winter when heating costs go through the roof. Even more disturbing are the recent press reports that the major oil companies are not using their record profits to boost production and lower future prices, but are instead cutting back on exploration and production. If they were using some of these huge profits to create more fuel, to create more production ability to be able to stave off shortages in the future, I would say let them have the profits because we will all benefit. They are not. They are just pocketing the profits. They are not doing a thing to find new oil, to find new production facilities. Listen to this from a report in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: ``Exploration and production expenditures at the so-called super majors--Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Amoco PLC, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group-- fell 20 percent to $6.91 billion in the first six months of the year from a year earlier. . . .'' Mr. President, that is outrageous. The oil industry is made up of corporations formed under the laws of the United States. These oil industry corporations have a responsibility to the public good as well as their shareholders. To reap record windfall profits and then cut back on exploration and production to further increase future profits is poor corporate citizenship and an abuse of the public trust by these oil industry corporations and their executives. Well I for one have had enough of Big Oil making record profits at the expense of the working families and the small business owners who pay the oil bills, live by the rules and struggle mightily when fuel and heating costs skyrocket. In response to the energy crisis of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. This windfall profits tax, which was repealed in 1988, funded low-income fuel assistance and energy and transportation programs. Similar to the early 1980s, American families again face an energy crisis of high prices and record oil company profits. This past June, gasoline prices hit all-time highs across the United States, with a national average of $1.68 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration. This winter, the Department of Energy estimates that heating oil inventories are 36 percent lower than last year with heating oil inventories in New England estimated to be 65 percent lower than last year. In my home state of Vermont, energy officials estimate heating oil costs will jump to $1.31 per gallon, up from $1.19 last winter and 80 cents in 1998. Given the oil industry's record windfall profits in the face of this energy crisis, it is time for Congress to act and again limit the windfall profits of Big Oil. The Leahy bill would do just that and dedicate the revenue generated from this windfall profits adjustment to help working families and small business owners with their heating oil costs this winter. If they are not going to put more money into providing more energy for us, then the Windfall Oil Profits For Heating Assistance Act of 2000 would impose a 100 percent assessment on windfall profits from the sale of crude oil. My legislation builds on the current investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, a well deserved investigation into the pricing and profits of the oil industry. My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to expand this investigation to determine if the oil industry is reaping windfall profits. The revenue collected from windfall oil industry profits, under my legislation, would be dedicated to two separate accounts in the Treasury for the following: 75 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance programs for consumers such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), weatherization and other energy efficiency programs; and 25 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance programs for small business owners. American consumers and small business owners continue to pay sky-high gasoline prices and home heating oil costs are expected to hit an all- time high this winter while U.S. oil corporations reap more record profits. We ought to restore some basic fairness to the marketplace. It is time for Congress to transfer the windfall profits from Big Oil to fund heating oil assistance for working families. If big oil executives say: But we need these profits so we can continue our exploration, we can continue to increase refineries--then let them spend the money for that. If they are actually spending the money for that, it is not a problem. But they want to have it both ways: They want to have a shortage, they want to force up the price, they want to have a windfall profit, and they want to stick it in their pocket and they don't want to do anything to help the consumer. If they are unwilling to help the consumer, the Congress ought to stand up and help the consumer. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and the bill be appropriately referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my main reason for coming to the floor today is to introduce the Windfall Oil Profits for Heating Assistance Act of 2000. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 3118 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I was amazed when I checked my computer, as I do during the day, to see what the latest news items were in our country and around the world. I learned of another tragic incident of school violence in a middle school in New Orleans. Just before noon yesterday, two teenaged boys, age 13 and 15, shot each other with the same gun during a fight just outside the cafeteria at the Carter G. Woodson Middle School. Hundreds of students were inside eating lunch. Both boys are in critical condition. The growing list of schoolyard violence by children in Arkansas, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Mississippi, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Florida, and now Louisiana is simply unacceptable and intolerable. Over a year ago, May 20, 1999, this Senate passed the Hatch-Leahy juvenile crime bill by a vote of 73-25. It had a number of things that would address school violence, a number of things that would help with the problems of teenage violence, that would create everything from mentoring programs to the prosecution of juvenile delinquents, and it passed overwhelmingly, with Republicans and Democrats alike voting for it. But we never had a real conference on it. It was stalled. Why? Because the gun lobbies told the Republican leadership that there was one minor problem, one minor bit of gun control--closing the gun show loophole, something that allows people to sell firearms to felons out of the back of a pickup truck at a flea market. One would think everyone would want to close that gun loophole and say everyone will abide by the same rules that the regular gun shops in Vermont or anywhere else have to follow; but, instead, because the gun lobby doesn't want that simple loophole closed, we haven't gone forward with a vote on this juvenile justice bill that goes into so many other areas--helping troubled teens, helping prosecutors, courts, and others with teenage violence. How many shootings do we have to have before the leadership, the Republican leadership, says we will stand up to the gun lobby and actually have a vote? If this Senate wants to vote against it, let it vote against it. I don't know why the Republicans are so concerned. They have a majority. They can vote against this bill if they want. But vote. Vote ``aye'' or vote ``nay.'' We are not paid to vote ``maybe.'' We are paid to vote up or down. We should do it. It has been more than 15 months since the Senate acted. It has been more than a year since the only meeting of the House-Senate conference committee on the Hatch- Leahy juvenile crime bill. It was on August 5, 1999 that Chairman Hatch convened the conference for the limited purpose of opening statements. I am disappointed that the Republican majority continues to refuse to reconvene the conference and that for a over a year this Congress has failed to respond to issues of youth violence, school violence and crime prevention. It has been 17 months since the tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, where 14 students and a teacher lost their lives. Senate and House Democrats have been ready for more than a year to reconvene the juvenile justice conference and work with Republicans to craft an effective juvenile justice conference report, but the Republican majority has adamantly refused to act. On October 20, 1999, all the House and Senate Democratic conferees wrote to Senator Hatch who serves as the Chairman of the juvenile justice conference, and Congressman Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to reconvene the conference immediately. In April of this year, Congressman Hyde joined our call for the juvenile justice conference to meet as soon as possible in a letter to Senator Hatch, which was also signed by Congressman Conyers. Last March, the President invited House and Senate leaders of the conference to the White House to implore us to proceed to the conference and to final enactment of legislation before the anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. This effort to jump-start the stalled conference could not break through the majority's intransigent inaction. That anniversary, like so many others tragic anniversaries has come and gone. We have seen more incidents but no action by the Republican Congress. The Republican majority has rejected the President's pleas for action as they have those of the American people. Every parent, teacher and student in this country is concerned about school violence over the last few years and worried about when the next shooting may occur. They only hope it does not happen at their school or involve their children. We all recognize that there is no single cause and no single legislative solution that will cure the ill of youth violence in our schools or in our streets. But we have had an opportunity before us to do our part and the Republican majority has chosen to squander it. We should have seized this opportunity to act on balanced, effective juvenile justice legislation. I regret that this Republican Congress has failed to do its work and provide the additional resources and reforms that would have been helpful and reassuring to our children, parents, grandparents, teachers and schools.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Vermont correct in understanding that morning business will not start until he has completed his 15 minutes?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair and my fellow New Englander.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I spoke earlier this month about the continuing problems for Federal law enforcement caused by the so-called McDade law, which was slipped into the omnibus appropriations law at the end of the last Congress. I discussed how the interplay of the McDade law and a recent attorney ethics decision by the Oregon Supreme Court is severely hampering Federal law enforcement efforts in Oregon. Oregon's Federal prosecutors will no longer use federally authorized investigative techniques such as wiretaps and consensual monitoring, and by the end of this week, the FBI will shut down Portland's Innocent Images undercover operation, which targets child pornography and exploitation. This is just the latest example of how the McDade law has impeded important criminal prosecutions, chilled the use of traditional Federal investigative techniques and posed multiple hurdles for Federal prosecutors. Due to my serious concerns about the adverse effects of the McDade law on Federal law enforcement efforts, I introduced S. 855, the Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act, on April 21, 1999. The Justice Department has called this legislation ``a good approach that addresses the two most significant problems caused by the McDade Amendment--confusion about what rule applies and the issue of contacts with represented parties.'' Since that time, I have conferred with a number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle about crafting an alternative to the McDade law. Together, we worked out a proposal based on S. 855, which would address the problems that have caused by the McDade law, while adhering to the basic premise of that law-- that the Department of Justice should not have the authority it long claimed either to write its own ethics rules or to exempt its lawyers from the ethics rules adopted by the Federal courts. Based on these discussions, I am filing this substitute amendment to my bill, S. 855. I regret that we have squandered opportunities to move any corrective legislation through the Congress. The consequences of our inaction have been severe, as I have discussed, and it is clear that Federal law enforcement efforts will continue to suffer if we do not act now. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the substitute amendment and a section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an extraordinary Vermonter, Daniel Dyer. As the world celebrates the end of the twentieth century, Daniel Dyer is celebrating the end of his first century. He has seen history made, but he has also made history of his own. Growing up on a farm in Vermont, Mr. Dyer attended the local school in Albany. His strong academic record afforded him the opportunity to attend Craftsbury Academy--where he performed odd jobs to help defray the cost of his room and board. From there, he moved on to the University of Vermont to study education and agriculture, and graduated in 1924. Since then, Mr. Dyer has given over forty years of dedicated service to the young people of Vermont as a teacher, a coach and a principal. Even after retiring, Mr. Dyer remains active in his community--just last year he was speaking to a classroom of sixth-grade students about his experiences growing up. His contributions to Vermonters were recognized by the University of Vermont when he received awards for Community Service Leadership in 1978 and Distinguished Service in 1988. Today Mr. Dyer is the University's oldest active alumnus and still maintains an amicable relationship with members of the faculty. On November 3, Daniel Dyer will celebrate his one hundredth birthday with friends and family. Of course, this grand event will include his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, all of whom--along with countless other Vermont children--have been touched by this special man.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Windfall Oil Profits for Heating Assistance Act of 2000 is a bit of a mouthful, but let me explain what this does. My legislation imposes a windfall profits adjustment on the oil industry so we can fund heating help for consumers and small business owners across America. Mr. President, while American families have been paying sky-high prices at the gas pump and are bracing for record-high home heating costs this winter, the oil industry is savoring phenomenal profits. Something is wrong when working families are struggling to pay for basic transportation and home heat while Big Oil rakes in obscene amounts of cash by the barrel. Indeed, the overall net income for the 14 major petroleum companies more than doubled in the second quarter of 2000 relative to the second quarter of 1999, to $10.3 billion. In the second quarter of 2000, BP Amoco PLC reported profits of $2.87 billion, Chevron Corporation reported profits of $1.14 billion, Conoco reported profits of $460 million, Exxon Mobil Corporation reported profits of $4.53 billion, Marathon Oil Company reported profits of $367 million, Phillips Petroleum Company reported profits of $439 million, Royal Dutch/Shell Group reported profits of $3.15 billion and Texaco, Inc. reported profits of $641 million. Look at these huge profits. When people in Vermont and New England want to know why they are paying so much extra for home heating oil, pick up the phone and call Texas and ask them how they justify these huge windfall profits. This chart illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry. Keep in mind, these profits came as gasoline prices soared and heating oil stocks fell. The oil industry executives said: It is the people of OPEC. It is not our fault. We love our customers. We are your friends. We wouldn't raise these prices. It is the naughty people overseas. We are not making any money from this. We are sorry you have to pay so much more to commute to work. We are sorry you can't heat your home. In my State, where it can drop down to 20 below zero, this is not a matter of comfort. It is a matter of whether you will live or not. But the oil industry executives say: We are sorry you have to pay so much more. Gee, maybe you should fill up early. Stocks are low. It is not our fault. We are not making anything out of this. We are not making any money out of it. They are liars. They are making money. They are making windfall profits. I have a chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry for the past year when gasoline prices soared and heating oil stocks fell. Compared to the second quarter of 1999, the profits in the second quarter of 2000 increased 133 percent for BP Amoco, 136 percent for Chevron, 205 percent for Conoco, 123 percent for Exxon Mobil, 208 percent for Marathon, 275 percent for Phillips, 96 percent for Shell and 124 percent for Texaco. Not surprisingly, these multi-million and even multi-billion dollar profits in the second quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and Shell were record quarterly profits. These gushering profits are not new for the oil industry in 2000. In the first quarter of 2000, Big Oil also reaped record profits. In the first quarter of 2000, ARCO reported profits of $333 million, BP Amoco reported profits of $2.68 billion, Chevron reported profits of $1.10 billion, Conoco reported profits of $391 million, Exxon Mobil reported profits of $3.35 billion, Phillips reported profits of $250 million, Shell reported profits of $3.13 billion, and Texaco reported profits of $602 million. I have a second chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry for the first quarter of the past year. Compared to the first quarter of 1999, the profits in the first quarter of 2000 increased 136 percent for ARCO, 296 percent for BP Amoco, 291 percent for Chevron , 371 percent for Conoco, 108 percent for Exxon Mobil, 257 percent for Phillips, 117 percent for Shell and 473 percent for Texaco. Again, these multi-million and multi-billion dollar profits in the first quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and Shell were record quarterly profits. Yet these same oil company executives can tell the people of Vermont, the Northeast and elsewhere: Sorry you have to pay so much more for your gasoline. Sorry you have to pay so much more for your home heating oil. It is not our fault. We are not making any profits. It is those mean people in the Middle East. Man, what hypocrisy. Somebody once said, in Vermont: We will rely on the facts. Vermonters are not fooled by this. But how frustrating it is for all of us, how frustrating it is for middle America, to pay these bills, feeling they are helpless. Because the fact comes down, in our State, in an extraordinarily cold winter, we have to have heat. The fact comes down, when men and women have to go to work and they have to commute, they have to pay the price of going there. Everybody expects to pay what it costs to live. But they do not expect to have to pay windfall profits for a cartel of companies. Big Oil reaped record profits while American consumers and small business owners dug deeper into their pockets to pay for soaring gasoline prices. And more record profits for Big Oil at the expense of consumers and small business owners are expected this winter when heating costs go through the roof. Even more disturbing are the recent press reports that the major oil companies are not using their record profits to boost production and lower future prices, but are instead cutting back on exploration and production. If they were using some of these huge profits to create more fuel, to create more production ability to be able to stave off shortages in the future, I would say let them have the profits because we will all benefit. They are not. They are just pocketing the profits. They are not doing a thing to find new oil, to find new production facilities. Listen to this from a report in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: ``Exploration and production expenditures at the so-called super majors--Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Amoco PLC, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group-- fell 20 percent to $6.91 billion in the first six months of the year from a year earlier. . . .'' Mr. President, that is outrageous. The oil industry is made up of corporations formed under the laws of the United States. These oil industry corporations have a responsibility to the public good as well as their shareholders. To reap record windfall profits and then cut back on exploration and production to further increase future profits is poor corporate citizenship and an abuse of the public trust by these oil industry corporations and their executives. Well I for one have had enough of Big Oil making record profits at the expense of the working families and the small business owners who pay the oil bills, live by the rules and struggle mightily when fuel and heating costs skyrocket. In response to the energy crisis of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. This windfall profits tax, which was repealed in 1988, funded low-income fuel assistance and energy and transportation programs. Similar to the early 1980s, American families again face an energy crisis of high prices and record oil company profits. This past June, gasoline prices hit all-time highs across the United States, with a national average of $1.68 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration. This winter, the Department of Energy estimates that heating oil inventories are 36 percent lower than last year with heating oil inventories in New England estimated to be 65 percent lower than last year. In my home state of Vermont, energy officials estimate heating oil costs will jump to $1.31 per gallon, up from $1.19 last winter and 80 cents in 1998. Given the oil industry's record windfall profits in the face of this energy crisis, it is time for Congress to act and again limit the windfall profits of Big Oil. The Leahy bill would do just that and dedicate the revenue generated from this windfall profits adjustment to help working families and small business owners with their heating oil costs this winter. If they are not going to put more money into providing more energy for us, then the Windfall Oil Profits For Heating Assistance Act of 2000 would impose a 100 percent assessment on windfall profits from the sale of crude oil. My legislation builds on the current investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, a well deserved investigation into the pricing and profits of the oil industry. My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to expand this investigation to determine if the oil industry is reaping windfall profits. The revenue collected from windfall oil industry profits, under my legislation, would be dedicated to two separate accounts in the Treasury for the following: 75 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance programs for consumers such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), weatherization and other energy efficiency programs; and 25 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance programs for small business owners. American consumers and small business owners continue to pay sky-high gasoline prices and home heating oil costs are expected to hit an all- time high this winter while U.S. oil corporations reap more record profits. We ought to restore some basic fairness to the marketplace. It is time for Congress to transfer the windfall profits from Big Oil to fund heating oil assistance for working families. If big oil executives say: But we need these profits so we can continue our exploration, we can continue to increase refineries--then let them spend the money for that. If they are actually spending the money for that, it is not a problem. But they want to have it both ways: They want to have a shortage, they want to force up the price, they want to have a windfall profit, and they want to stick it in their pocket and they don't want to do anything to help the consumer. If they are unwilling to help the consumer, the Congress ought to stand up and help the consumer. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and the bill be appropriately referred.