Floor Statements

Mr. President, in a matter of hours, the assault weapons ban will expire. That moment will mark a turning point--to the wrong direction--in our effort to reduce gun violence. Criminals, and potentially terrorists, will once again have easy access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. I am disappointed that, despite broad bipartisan support for the ban, the Republican congressional leadership opposes it and President Bush has done little or nothing to support this important legislation.

At midnight tonight, 19 currently banned assault weapons will become legal once again, as well as firearms that can accept detachable magazines and have more than one of several specific military features, such as a folding/telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, barrel shroud or grenade launcher. Common sense tells us that there is no reason for civilians

to have easy access to guns with these features.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly urged the Congress to act. I believe that allowing gun manufacturers to restart production of these dangerous weapons will increase their number and availability on our streets and lead to a rise in gun crimes committed with assault weapons.

Many in the law enforcement community have called the currently banned assault weapons ``the weapons of choice for criminals.'' This is what the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police has said about the expiration of the assault weapons ban:

We are disappointed in the lack of political will to extend

a ban that has apparently worked. In the ten years of the

ban's life, there has been a 66% reduction in assault weapons

traced to crime.

The MACP has informed me that 14 police officers have been killed in the U.S. by assault weapons already this year. Unfortunately, that the number will likely rise as the assault weapons ban is allowed to expire.

Last week, Police Chief Ervin Portis of Jackson, MI, came to Washington, DC in support of reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. Accompanying him on this trip was David Harvey, retired chief of police of Garden City, MI. Chief Harvey was chief of police on December 31, 2002, when an armed assailant set out to execute a police officer from Garden City. His intended victim was Officer Rodney Donald. Officer Donald was shot 7 times with a semi-automatic rifle that contained a magazine with a capacity of 100 rounds. Officer Donald is now permanently disabled and unable to perform duties as a police officer. The clip used in this attack is currently banned, but, like many of the assault weapons it was designed for, the clip will again become legal at midnight.

As many of my colleagues know, law enforcement support for the assault weapons ban is broad. Supporters include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association.

On the other side are lobbyists of the National Rifle Association and their allies in Congress and the White House. The NRA has said that the ban is ineffective and unnecessary. But this assertion is not supported by the facts. According to statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, from 1990 to 1994, assault weapons named in the ban constituted 4.82 percent of guns traced in criminal investigations. However, since the ban's enactment, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61 percent of the crime-related guns traced. It is disturbing that the President has sat back rather than standing up with our Nation's law enforcement community in support of this critical piece of gun safety legislation.

The Senate majority leader was quoted in a New York Times article on September 9 as saying, ``I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire.'' I am aware of no facts to support that statement. In fact, numerous polls have found that large majorities of adults support a reauthorization of the ban. In the very same New York Times article, the House majority leader is quoted referring to the Assault weapons ban as ``a feel-good piece of legislation.''

On March 2 of this year, I joined with the majority of my colleagues in passing an amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for another 10 years. The bill to which it was attached, however, was later derailed.

Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, bipartisan support in the Senate, and the pleas of Americans who have already lost loved ones to assault weapons tragedies, it appears the ban will expire at midnight tonight, as neither the President nor the Republican congressional leadership is willing to act. Unfortunately, tomorrow morning Americans will wake up less secure than they are today.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article titled ``Effort to Renew Weapons Ban Falters on Hill'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in less than one week, the 1994 assault weapons ban will expire and our Nation will once again be vulnerable to guns known to most in the law enforcement community as ``the weapons of choice for criminals.'' If the ban is allowed to expire on September 13, potential criminals, including terrorists, could have access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms capable of being produced. These guns have no sporting purpose and no place on our streets.

In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the current ban also includes prohibitions on semiautomatic weapons that incorporate a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features include folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. Common sense should tell us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these features.

Los Angeles Chief of Police Bill Bratton has said the following about these weapons: ``Since the Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, we have seen a 66% decline in the frequency of assault weapon use in crime. Violent criminals love these weapons because they give them far more firepower than conventional weapons that greatly increases their capacity to kill. We cannot allow these weapons to get back into their hands.''

It is important to listen to Chief Bratton and other law enforcement officials who support an extension of the assault weapons ban. The ban is important for the safety of all Americans but is especially important for the safety of our police officers.

In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to keep the law alive.

Time is running short. We should support our law enforcement officers and reauthorize this common sense ban on assault weapons. Congress needs to act immediately to reauthorize the ban. I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the organizations supporting this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I, along with my esteemed colleague Senator Stabenow, congratulate Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, LSSM, on its 70th anniversary. We are delighted to recognize LSSM's impressive history of compassion and good will in Michigan. We would also like to recognize and honor LSSM's staff and volunteers for their tireless efforts and outstanding commitment to helping those in need.

LSSM's legacy of service dates back to the early years of the 20th century when the Lutheran churches in Detroit formed the Missionsbund, a society dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance in Detroit. The Lutheran Inner Mission League of Greater Detroit grew out of this effort and was soon thereafter called the Lutheran Charities and formally incorporated in 1934. Under the leadership of its first executive director, the Rev. Carl E. Schaffnit, its efforts included child welfare work, a settlement house, and services to the elderly. By 1959 Lutheran Charities gained a new name, the Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, and has since expanded its mission to serve others in the name of faith with 80 programs in 44 cities throughout Michigan's lower peninsula.

Over 20,000 people from diverse backgrounds feel the warm embrace of LSSM on an annual basis by utilizing the many services it has to offer. LSSM's excellence can be seen by the success of its programs in the realm of foster care, adoption, childcare, subsidized housing, nursing homes, community centers, and services to the homeless, refugees, and persons with developmental disabilities. Its efforts to preserve and enhance human dignity across Michigan have created hope for so many. We share this organization's vision for a community that upholds human dignity, decries complacency and affirms equality and justice. We are sure that our Senate colleagues will join us in offering our heartfelt

congratulations for this long and outstanding record of achievement.

Madam President, I take this opportunity to congratulate all of the athletes who competed in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. The Olympic Games celebrate years of training, struggle and perseverance in overcoming obstacles and striving to become the best. It was wonderful to see so many athletes from across the globe come together in peaceful competition.

Greece did a tremendous job of hosting the Games. The scenery was breathtaking, and the venues were spectacular. These Games were especially notable because of the return of the Olympics to its birthplace in Greece. The historic legacy of Greece was particularly noteworthy for the marathon competitors who began their journey in the ancient city of Marathon, the original location of the event, and for the shot-put competitors who competed in the original Olympic stadium in Olympia.

Over a 16-day span, the Olympic spirit was embodied by the athletic prowess and grace displayed by the best athletes our country has to offer, including many from Michigan. Michigan continued our long tradition of contributing world-class athletes to both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games with athletes competing in 13 different sports in this year's Games. It was inspiring to witness their total effort, and in many cases, the realization of their dreams. There are legions of young athletes who watched these Games and will continue to dream and strive to one day represent their country with the same pride, grace and determination that was on display at these Games.

I am particularly proud of the 28 individuals from Michigan who competed for the United States in the 2004 Athens Olympics. All of the athletes on Team USA achieved amazing feats to qualify for these Games. The Michigan Olympians included Martin Boonzaayer in judo; Tim Broe in track and field; Swin Cash in basketball; Tara Cunningham in weightlifting; Andre Dirrell in boxing; Kate Johnson in rowing; Kara Lynn Joyce in swimming; Klete Keller in swimming; Dan Ketchum in swimming; Rachel Komisarz in swimming; Kate MacKenzie in rowing; Tom Malchow in swimming; Kate Markgraf in soccer; Jamie Nieto in track and field; Carly Piper in swimming; Andy Potts in the triathalon; Jasna Reed in table tennis; Ruth Riley in basketball; Dathan Ritzenhein in track and field; Artour Samsonov in rowing; Jeff Smoke in canoe/kayak; Daryl Szarenski in shooting; Sheila Taormina in the triathalon; Lindsay Tarpley in soccer; Paul Terek in track and field; Peter Vanderkaay in swimming; Steve Warner in rowing; and Lauryn Williams in track and field. This outstanding group of athletes brought honor to our State and Nation and accounted for a total of 15 medals for the United States: eight gold, five silver, and two bronze.

In addition, competing at these Games were nine other athletes with ties to Michigan: Michael Phelps in swimming, who will be attending the University of Michigan, U of M; Alan Webb in track and field, who attended the U of M; and Venus Williams in tennis, who lived in Michigan, competed for Team USA. In addition, six athletes with Michigan ties competed for other countries: Courtney Babcock for Canada in track and field; Carlos Delfino for Argentina in basketball; Chris Demetral for Greece in baseball; Andrew Hurd for Canada in swimming; Kevin Sullivan for Canada in track and field; and Nick Willis for New Zealand in track and field.

Every two years we watch the Summer and Winter Games to catch a glimpse of these extraordinary athletes' struggles and successes. An Olympian's life is about sacrifice, about showing up to grueling practices day after day, about working hard to become the best in the world. It was riveting to watch these Games unfold. In Athens, as is the case in every Olympiad, there were many amazing moments that will resonate in our minds for years to come. Let me take a moment to highlight a few of them.

Representing the WNBA Champion Detroit Shock on the gold medal winning women's basketball team were Ruth Riley and Swin Cash. The women won the gold medal by going unbeaten, increasing their Olympic winning streak to an incredible 25 games. Another notable achievement was accomplished by Andre Dirrell of Flint, who won a bronze medal in the middleweight division in boxing. Dirrell showed the heart of a champion as one of only two U.S. boxers to win a medal in these Games.

First-time Olympian Lauryn Williams of Detroit won the silver medal in the 100-meter sprint. In an extremely close race, Williams edged out a Jamaican runner to finish with the silver and a personal best time. In addition, Kate Johnson, from the U of M, won a silver medal as part of the women's eight rowing team. The team set a world record in one of their preliminary heats en route to winning their medal.

On the soccer field, the U.S. women's team took the gold medal with an extremely thrilling 2 to 1 overtime victory over Brazil. Michigan residents Kate Markgraf and Lindsay Tarpley helped the team achieve this victory over the tough Brazilian team. Tarpley, a midfielder from Kalamazoo, tallied one assist against Greece and scored the first goal in the gold medal match against Brazil. Markgraf of Bloomfield Hills, starting in all six games as a defender, helped her team remain undefeated. This was her second time representing the United States in the Olympics.

Another heart pounder came in the men's 4x200 meter freestyle swimming relay. The U.S. men's team, which included Peter Vanderkaay from Royal Oak, Klete Keller from Ann Arbor, U of M alumnus Dan Ketchum and future Wolverine Michael Phelps, held off a strong Australian team to win the gold and set an American record. In addition to this golden performance, Keller won the bronze medal in the 400-meter freestyle, and Michael Phelps won an additional five gold and two bronze medals to establish himself as one of the stars of this or any Olympiad.

For the women's swim team, Kara Lynn Joyce from Ann Arbor won a silver medal as a part of the 4x100 meter medley relay team. Additionally, Joyce, along with teammate Rachel Komisarz from Warren, won a silver medal in the 4x100 meter freestyle relay. Another victory was secured by the women's 4x200 meter freestyle relay team, which included Komisarz and Carly Piper from Grosse Pointe Woods who swam in the finals. In the finals, the U.S. women broke the world record.

The athletes with Michigan ties who represented other countries had many

notable achievements as well. Second baseman and Troy resident Chris Demetral, a Greek American, assisted the Greek baseball team to a 7th overall finish. In men's basketball, Carlos Delfino, who was drafted by the World Champion Detroit Pistons in 2003 and will be joining the team this year, competed for the Argentinean Olympic team.

Our athletes were supported by a great number of coaches and staff who made their success in the Games possible. The coaches with ties to Michigan include Bob Bowman of the U of M in swimming; Larry Brown of the Detroit Pistons in basketball; Todd Dagenais of Michigan State University in volleyball; Steven Fraser from the U of M in wrestling; Kevin Jackson from Jackson in wrestling; Al Mitchell of Northern Michigan University in boxing, and Jon Urbanchek of the U of M in swimming. In addition to the coaching staff, three U of M alumni were involved in the administration of the Games. Jeffrey Benz is the current general counsel and Abigail Tompkins is a member of the United States Olympic Committee, USOC. Thomas Miller is the current United States Ambassador to Greece. All of these individuals worked tirelessly to assist the athletes in their pursuit of greatness at these Games.

I know I speak for all Michiganians in expressing appreciation and congratulations to all of the Michigan athletes, coaches, and administrators who took part in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. The Games last a few short weeks, but the memories will be ingrained in the minds of all who saw them and shared vicariously in the efforts of these great athletes. For their commitment, drive and competitive spirit, I congratulate all the athletes of the 2004 Olympic Games, but it is with particular pride that I salute the athletes and coaches from Michigan.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Voices of Detroit Initiative, VODI. VODI provides an opportunity for people living in Detroit and Wayne

County, who do not have insurance, to improve their health. VODI has emerged as an extraordinary leader in Michigan's efforts to provide better health care access for the uninsured. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, RWJF, recognized VODI for its efforts and awarded them a grant as part of RWJF's Urgent Matters initiative to increase understanding of the health care safety net and improve the efficiency of emergency care.

Over a quarter million residents are without health insurance coverage in Detroit and Wayne County. This lack of insurance has severe implications on patient health and the availability of resources to care for the uninsured, most of whom are low-income working people. As a result, more than 50 percent of emergency room visits are for problems that could have been treated outside of the emergency room.

VODI is a coalition between Michigan's leading systems: Henry Ford Health System, Detroit Medical Center, St. John Health, Oakwood Healthcare and Federally Qualified Health Centers. The Federally Qualified Health Centers are made up of Advantage Health Centers, Community Health and Social Services, CHASS, and Detroit Community Health Connection, and the Detroit and Wayne County Health Departments. Together these leaders work to connect the uninsured with a provider or clinic that can provide direct care on an ongoing basis, a ``medical home.'' Health care services at these sites are provided to VODI's members on a sliding-fee scale. VODI also engages in multiple activities to promote better health care access for the uninsured, including a pharmacy assistance and medication review program, a tobacco use reduction program, and care management services to assist clients with managing their chronic health conditions.

On behalf of the people of Michigan, I am pleased to express appreciation to the Voices of Detroit Initiative for their untiring leadership in coordinating and leveraging scarce resources on behalf of the underserved and uninsured and to honor the organization, its staff, and its partners as they continue to work to fulfill their lifesaving mission.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this week is the last week that Congress is in session before the August recess and there is only one additional week to act before the Assault Weapons Ban expires on September 13th. This past Monday, one of our former colleagues, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post. In his article, Senator Metzenbaum highlights the broad support this law has among Americans, as well as the inconsistencies between the stated positions and the actions of President Bush on the reauthorization of this critical law.

As my colleagues know, in addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the existing ban makes it illegal to ``manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic'' firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of several specific military features, such as folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds or grenade launchers. These weapons are dangerous and they should not be on America's streets.

In April of this year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence joined hundreds of local elected officials and senior law enforcement officials to urge President Bush to push for reauthorization of this critical piece of gun safety legislation. Since then, the support for this important law has grown exponentially. In addition to former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton, nearly every major law enforcement organization in the country, gun safety organizations, a bipartisan majority of the Senate, and countless local leaders have added their names to the list of supporters. I commend them for their efforts in support of this commonsense gun safety legislation.

In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive.

I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed from Senator Metzenbaum be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. I also ask that the list of organizations in support of this critical piece of gun safety legislation be printed in the Record following Senator Metzenbaum's op- ed.

Mr. President, I am disappointed to see that the U.S.- Morocco Free-Trade Agreement contains patent protection language similar to that contained in the U.S.-Australia Free-Trade Agreement. Although I will not oppose this agreement on this one basis, I will oppose the use of this language as a precedent for any future free- trade agreement.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his comments relative to judicial appointments. He is exactly right in terms of the number of judges that this Senate has confirmed with the support of this side of the aisle. He is exactly right when it comes to the willingness of Senator Stabenow and myself to compromise the deadlock that exists with this administration over the Michigan judges. We have been willing to do that from the beginning of this administration. We continue to be willing to attempt some kind of a compromise relative to these vacancies.

What we are unwilling to do is to allow a tactic, which was used relative to these two women who were nominated by President Clinton which denied them hearings for over 4 years and over 1\1/2\ years respectively, to succeed, as the good Senator from New York said, to either create these vacancies or to leave these vacancies opened for the next President to fill. That is not the way things should work. It is not the way the Constitution contemplated it. We are going to do our best to continue to press for a bipartisan solution in a number of ways but in the meantime to not simply say, OK, go ahead, fill vacancies which should not exist but only exist because of the denial of hearings for two well-qualified women who were appointed by President Clinton.

I thank the Senator from New York for his comments, for his perception, for his willingness and determination--more than willingness--to look at the full meaning of the Constitution so that it is not just the President who makes appointments in a situation such as this and assumes that the vacancies, which were created by denial of hearings for nominees of the previous administration, will be rubberstamped by this body.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator from New York is decidedly right. We have expressed that willingness. There have been a number of suggestions which have been made for compromise. One of the suggestions which we have made was that there be a bipartisan commission appointed in Michigan to make recommendations to the White House to fill these vacancies. The recommendations do not have to include these two women. Bipartisan commissions have been appointed in other States without this kind of a deadlock existing but simply to promote bipartisanship. That suggestion has been rejected by the White House.

There was another suggestion that was made by Senator Leahy when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for that period of time the Democrats were in the majority. That suggestion was actually supported by the then-Republican Governor of Michigan. There was a recommendation by then-Chairman Leahy as to how to resolve this issue. That was also

rejected by the White House. We continue to be open to suggestions to fill these vacancies, but we are deeply of the belief that the tactic that was used to deny hearings to qualified women--one of whom is a Michigan court of appeals judge and the other one of whom is a celebrated appellate lawyer in front of the Sixth Circuit--should not succeed. Maybe it succeeds in some places where there are not Senators in those States who will object because the new President of their party picks somebody they like and may have recommended.

But in a situation like this, when you have the advise-and-consent clause in the Constitution, and where there has been this kind of a tactic used, which the White House acknowledges was unfair--Judge Gonzalez has acknowledged that that tactic of denying hearings was unfair--simply to then fill the vacancies that were unfairly created is not something we can simply roll over and accept.

Yes.

I thank my friend from New York.

Mr. President, I discussed with the Senator from New York the situation and the background relative to these Michigan vacancies. Two women, Helene White, a court of appeals judge, and Kathleen McCree Lewis, well known in Michigan as a very effective advocate-- particularly appellate advocacy--were nominated by President Clinton to be on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge White was denied a hearing for over 4 years, which is the longest time anyone has ever awaited a hearing in the Senate. She was never given a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Kathleen McCree Lewis waited over a year and a half without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

For a time, there was a refusal to return blue slips on these two nominees by my then-colleague Spence Abraham. But even after Senator Abraham returned the blue slips in the spring of 2000, the women were not given hearings. They never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor.

That distortion of the judicial nominating process was unfair to the two nominees. It deprived the previous administration of consideration by the Senate of those two nominees. Senator Stabenow and I have objected to proceeding to the current nominees until a just resolution is achieved.

Moving forward without resolving the impasse in a bipartisan manner could indeed deepen partisan differences and make future efforts to resolve this matter more difficult. I have said repeatedly that the number of Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit provides an unusual opportunity for bipartisan compromise.

Judge Helene White was nominated to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit on January 7, 1997. I returned my blue slip on Judge White's nomination. The junior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, did not. More than 10 months later, on October 22, 1997, Senator Leahy, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, delivered what would be the first of at least 16 statements on the Senate floor, made over a 4-year period regarding Sixth Circuit nominations in Michigan. He called for the committee to act on Judge White's nomination. His appeal, like others that were to follow, was unsuccessful.

For instance, in October of 1998, more than a year and a half after Judge White was nominated, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, where he warned the following:

In each step of the process, judicial nominees are being

delayed and stalled.

His plea was ignored. The 105th Congress ended without a hearing for Judge White.

On January 26, 1999, the beginning of the next Congress, President Clinton again submitted Judge White's nomination. That day, I sent one of many notes to both Senator Abraham and to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In that letter, I said the 105th Congress had ended without a Judiciary Committee hearing for Judge White and suggested that fundamental fairness dictated there be an early hearing in the 106th Congress. Again, no hearing.

On March 1, 1999, Judge Cornelia Kennedy took senior status, opening a second Michigan vacancy on the Sixth Circuit. The next day, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, repeated his previous statement that nominations were being stalled, and raised Judge White's nomination as an example.

On September 16, 1999, President Clinton decided to nominate Kathleen McCree Lewis to that second vacancy. Soon thereafter, within 2 weeks, I spoke with Senator Abraham about both nominations, the Lewis and the White nominations. It had been more than 2\1/2\ years since Judge White was first nominated. Twice in the next month and a half, Senator Leahy urged the committee to act, calling the treatment of judicial nominees unconscionable.

On November 18, 1999, I again wrote to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch, urging hearings in January 2000 for the two nominees. I then noted that Judge White had been waiting for nearly 3 years for a hearing, and I stated that confirmation of the two women was essential for fundamental fairness. My appeals were for naught, and 1999 ended without hearings in the Judiciary Committee.

In February of 2000, Senator Leahy spoke again on the floor about vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. A few weeks later, in February of 2000, I made a personal plea to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to hold hearings on the Michigan nominees. Again, I was unsuccessful and no hearing was scheduled.

On March 20, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit sent a letter to Chairman Hatch expressing concerns about an alleged statement from a member of the Judiciary Committee that ``due to partisan considerations,'' there would be no more hearings or votes on vacancies for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Clinton administration. The judge's concern would turn out to be well-founded.

On April 13, 2000, Senator Abraham returned his blue slips for both Judge White and Ms. Lewis without indicating his approval or disapproval. The day Senator Abraham returned his blue slips, I spoke to Chairman Hatch and sent him a letter reminding him that blue slips had now been returned, that objections had not been raised, expressed my concern about the unconscionable length of time the nominations had been pending, and I urged that they be placed on the agenda of the next Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

Those efforts were unsuccessful. Two Michigan nominees were not placed on the agenda. I tried again early May 2000. I sent another note to Chairman Hatch, but those nominations were not placed on the committee's hearing agenda then or ever.

Over the next several months, Senator Leahy went to the floor 10 more times to urge action on the Michigan nominees. More than once, I also raised the issue on the Senate floor.

In the fall of 2000, in a final attempt to move the nominations of two Michigan nominees, I met with the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senator Daschle to discuss the situation. I sent a letter to the majority leader urging him, stating, ``The nominees from Michigan are women of integrity and fairness. They have been stalled in this Senate for an unconscionable amount of time without any stated reason.''

Neither the meeting with the majority leader nor the letter resulted in the Judiciary Committee holding hearings on these nominations, and the 106th

Congress ended without hearings for either woman.

Judge White's nomination was pending for more than 4 years, the longest period of time of any circuit court nominee waiting for a hearing in the history of the Senate. And Ms. Lewis's nomination was pending for over a year and a half.

There has been a great debate over the issue of blue slips. I am not sure this is the place for a lengthy debate on that issue, but I will say there has not been a consistent policy, apparently, relative to blue slips, although it would seem as though the inconsistency has worked one way.

In 1997, when asked by a reporter about a Texas nominee opposed by the Republican Senators from Texas, Chairman Hatch said the policy is that if a Senator returns a negative blue slip, that person is going to be dead. In October 7, 1999, Chairman Hatch said, with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White:

I might add, had both home-State Senators been opposed to

Judge (Ronnie) White in committee, John White would never

have come to the floor under our rules. I have to say, that

would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or

Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary

Committee has operated. . . .

Apparently, it is not operating that way anymore because both Michigan Senators have objected to this nominee based on the reasons which I have set forth: that we cannot accept a tactic which keeps vacancies open, refusing hearings to the nominees of one President to keep vacancies open so they can then be filled by another President. That tactic should be stopped. It is not going to be stopped if these nominations are just simply approved without a compromise being worked out which would preserve a bipartisan spirit and the constitutional spirit about the appointment of Federal judges.

It is my understanding that not a single judicial nominee for district or circuit courts--not one--got a Judiciary Committee hearing during the Clinton administration if there was opposition from one home State Senator, let alone two. Now both home State Senators oppose proceeding with these judicial nominees absent a bipartisan approach.

Enough about blue slips. Senator Abraham then did return blue slips in April of 2000. He had marked them neither ``support'' nor ``oppose'', but they were returned without a statement of opposition. And what happened? What happened is, even though those blue slips were returned by Senator Abraham, there still were no hearings given to the Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit.

There was also an Ohio nominee named Kent Markus who was nominated to the Sixth Circuit. In his case, both home State Senators indicated their approval of his nomination, but nonetheless, this Clinton nominee was not granted a Judiciary Committee hearing, and his troubling account of that experience shed some additional light on the Michigan situation.

He testified before the Judiciary Committee last May, and said the following. This is the Ohio Clinton nominee to the Sixth Circuit:

To their credit, Senator DeWine and his staff and Senator

Hatch's staff and others close to him were straight with me.

Over and over again they told me two things: One, there will

be no more confirmations to the Sixth Circuit during the

Clinton administration, and two, this has nothing to do with

you; don't take it personally--it doesn't matter who the

nominee is, what credentials they may have or what support

they may have.

Then Marcus went on. This is his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee:

On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ``This is bigger

than you and it's bigger than me.'' Senator Kohl, who kindly

agreed to champion my nomination within the Judiciary

Committee, encountered a similar brick wall. . . . The fact

was, a decision had been made to hold the vacancies and see

who won the Presidential election. With a Bush win, all those

seats could go to Bush rather than Clinton nominees.

We are not alone in the view that what occurred with respect to these Sixth Circuit nominees was fundamentally unfair. Even Judge Gonzales, the current White House counsel, has acknowledged it was wrong for the Republican-led Senate to delay action on judicial nominees for partisan reasons, at one point even calling the treatment of some nominees ``inexcusable,'' to use his word.

The tactic used against the two Michigan nominees should not be allowed to succeed, but as determined as we are that it not succeed, we are equally determined that there be a bipartisan solution, both to resolve a current impasse, but also for the sake of this process. There is such an opportunity to have a bipartisan solution because there are four Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit.

In order to achieve a fair resolution, Senator Stabenow and I have made a number of proposals, and we have accepted a number of proposals. We proposed a bipartisan commission to recommend nominees to the President. Similar commissions have been used in other States. The commission would not be limited to any particular people. The two nominees of President Clinton may not be recommended by a bipartisan commission. Of greater importance, the existence of recommendations of a commission are not binding on the President.

The White House, in response to this suggestion--again, even though it was used in other States--has said that the constitutional power to appoint judges rests with the President, and of course it does. So there is no way anyone would propose or should propose that a bipartisan commission be able to make recommendations which would be binding upon the President of the United States, nor is the recommendation binding upon the Senate of the United States. It is simply a recommendation. This has occurred in other States under these and similar circumstances, and there is no reason why it should not be used here.

We also, again, were given a suggestion by the then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has tried his very best to figure out a solution to this deadlock. Senator Leahy made a suggestion which was acceptable to both Senator Stabenow and me. It was acceptable even to the then-Republican Governor of the State of Michigan, Governor Engler, but it was rejected by the White House.

We have an unusual opportunity to obtain a bipartisan solution. It is an opportunity which has been afforded to us by the large number of vacancies in Michigan on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding that bipartisan path would be of great benefit, not just as a solution to this problem but to set a positive tone for the resolution of other judicial disputes as well.

In addition to the points which I have made, we made the additional point at the Judiciary Committee relative to the qualifications of Judge Saad. We indicated then and we went into some detail then that it is our belief that his judicial temperament falls below the standard expected of nominees to the second highest court in this country.

The Judiciary Committee considered a number of issues relating to that subject, judicial temperament or shortfall thereof, of this nominee in a closed session of the Judiciary Committee. I will not go into detail further, except to say we have made that point. We feel very keenly about that issue.

The vote in the Judiciary Committee was 10 to 9 to report out this nomination. It was a vote along party lines. The temperament issue, however, was raised, and properly so, in the Judiciary Committee, as well as this basic underlying issue which I have spent some time outlining this afternoon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York for submitting the resolution about which he has just spoken.

Mr. President, article 17.9.4 of the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation allowing patent holders to prevent the import of their patented products is redundant and should not have been included in the agreement. Australian law already bans the export of pharmaceuticals if such drugs are purchased under its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and PBS drugs account for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia.

This language does not establish a precedent for other free trade agreements. According to the Senate Finance Committee, it is appropriate to raise objections if this language is included in a free trade agreement negotiated with a country that does not forbid the export of low cost pharmaceuticals. Therefore, I will support this agreement.

Mr. President, the Do the Write Thing Challenge, sponsored by the National Campaign to Stop Violence, is a national writing contest in which students express their concerns

about subjects such as domestic violence, easy access to guns, and gang activity.

Do the Write Thing currently operates in 14 cities, including Detroit, MI. Over the past 9 years, more than 285,000 students from middle schools from around the country have participated in this contest. During this past school year, over 85,000 middle school students participated in youth violence discussions and roundtables sponsored by the Do the Write Thing Challenge. Some 28,000 students chose to submit contributions to their local Do the Write Thing Challenge committee.

Over 2,500 school finalists were honored at local recognition ceremonies and had their writings published and distributed locally. Next week, two national finalists from each participating jurisdiction will be honored at a national recognition ceremony in Washington, DC. Also during next week's National Recognition Week, the finalists will present their views on youth violence to such national leaders as the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Members of the House and Senate. In addition, their writings will be published and placed in the Library of Congress.

The works, ranging from poems to essays to stories, all describe the impact of violence in the lives of children. I am pleased that the National Campaign to Stop Violence will honor two students from Michigan, Michael Williams and Starlyn Robinson, for their poems on youth violence. I commend these two young people for their hard work and I know my colleagues join me in celebrating the efforts of middle school students from around the country.

I ask unanimous consent that Michael and Starlyn's poems be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Constitution is a document that should only be amended with great caution. This is one of those moments when we would be wise to submit the strong feelings on this issue to careful deliberation.

Unfortunately, proponents have chosen to do otherwise. The language we are debating was introduced less than 4 months ago. It is not clear what text we would even be voting on. The proposed language changes almost daily, like the weather. The amendment was not voted on by the committee of jurisdiction and we do not have the benefit of a committee report laying out the pros and cons of the amendment.

For purposes of comparison, the Congressional Research Service looked at constitutional amendments originating in the Senate over the last 40 years. Since 1963, 691 constitutional amendments have originated in the Senate. Including cloture votes, only 19 of these measures were voted on in the Senate. According to CRS, only four times in those 40 years has a constitutional amendment that originated in the Senate been debated in the Senate without first being reported by the Judiciary Committee. And of those four times, only the amendment providing Congress the power to limit campaign expenditures, versions of which were considered by the full Senate in the 100th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, came to the floor without earlier amendments on the same subject having been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that amendment was not adopted. The amendment we are currently debating has received less consideration than any constitutional amendment originating in and voted on in the Senate in at least the last 40 years, with the possible exception of one which was defeated.

In 1979, a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of the President and Vice President was brought directly to the Senate floor. Senator Thurmond, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, protested the tactic, saying ``The Judiciary Committee is the proper machinery for referral of this resolution. It is set up under our rules for considering a measure of this kind. It should be utilized and should not be sidestepped as it attempted to do here with this procedure.'' He was joined by the then ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Senator Hatch, who said ``To bypass the committee is, I think, to denigrate the committee process, especially when an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the most important document in the history of the Nation, is involved.''

Senators Thurmond and Hatch's efforts to encourage thoughtful consideration were successful and the amendment was referred with unanimous consent to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration. Our consideration of the pending amendment would also benefit from such a process.

One purpose of the pending amendment is stated to be to protect one State from imposing its view of marriage on other States. But this debate is taking place before the courts have even had the chance to determine the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which almost all of us voted for, which says that ``No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding or any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'' Defense of Marriage Act defines ``marriage'' as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.''

Even though the Defense of Marriage Act has yet to be tested in court, some proponents of the pending amendment have claimed the act will be ruled unconstitutional and that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will force States opposed to same-sex marriages to recognize same-sex marriages established in other States. However, many experts disagree.

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, Professor R. Lea Brilmayer, a Yale Law School expert on the full faith and credit clause, cited the Supreme Court in Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 1939: ``We think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment . . .'' Professor Brilmayer testified that less formal legal instruments, such as marriage licenses, have been ``entitled to less recognition even than legislation'' and that ``marriages entered into in one state have never been constitutionally entitled to automatic recognition in other states.''

Amending the Constitution should be a measure of last resort. The Defense of Marriage Act should be tested in court before a constitutional amendment is considered, the purpose of which is to achieve the purpose of the statute.

In addition, the language of S.J. Res. 40 itself contains a host of problems. The amendment reads, ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''

Not surprisingly, given the lack of deliberation, there appear to be differences of opinion on what the amendment provides.

Some have argued that the amendment's language relative to ``legal incidents'' of marriage does not ban civil unions or the extension of other rights to same-sex couples. But here is what Professor Cass Sunstein, a leading constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, has to say:

What is meant by ``the legal incidents thereof''? Does this

provision ban civil unions? Does it forbid States from

allowing people in same-sex relationships to have the

(spousal) right to visit their partners in hospitals? Does it

bear on rules governing insurance? At first glance, the term

``legal incidents thereof'' appears to forbid States from

making cautious steps in the direction of permitting civil

unions. And does the word ``require'' include ``permit''? Or

consider the recent Allard amendment, which says that neither

the federal Constitution nor any state Constitution shall be

construed to require that marriage or ``the legal incidents

thereof'' must be ``conferred'' on same-sex marriages. The

most serious difficulty is that the words ``legal incidents

thereof'' raise the same questions about civil unions and

spousal benefits and privileges.

For all these reasons, I will vote no.

Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Michigan in supporting resolution honoring Gerald R. Ford, the 38th President of the United States on the occasion of his 91st birthday.

President Ford, the favorite son of the city of Grand Rapids, and the only President from Michigan, played a memorable role in our Nation's history in one of its darkest hours. The first Vice-President appointed under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It was Gerald Ford's calm and steady leadership that began the process of healing our Nation's wounds after one of the most serious domestic crises in our history. President Clinton awarded him the Medal of Freedom, in 1999, in recognition of that leadership.

Gerald Ford served thirteen terms in the House of Representatives. From 1965 through 1973, he was the minority leader in that body. It is particularly instructive in this time of partisan division in the Congress to reflect on his example as one who fought many battles on behalf of his party, and his constituency, but who did so without acrimony or ill-will. He build life-long relationships and friendships across the party aisle--even with his opposite numbers in the House Democratic leadership. We would be well served at this time in this body to remember his example.

I extend my congratulations and best wishes to Gerry Ford, his wonderful wife, Betty, and his family. I am certain that the people of Michigan, and our colleagues in the Senate join Senator Stabenow and me in paying tribute to President Ford on his 91st birthday.

Mr. President, the bipartisan list of supporters for extending the Federal Assault Weapons Ban continues to grow longer and even more influential. This week, former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton sent a joint letter to President Bush urging him to spur Congress to act to extend this important gun safety law. The former Presidents make an already impressive group of supporters even more remarkable.

The reauthorization of this law already has the support of America's law enforcement community, gun safety organizations, millions of moms and countless others. The message of the former Presidents is simple: the assault weapons ban works. They wrote to President Bush: ``Each of us, along with President Reagan, worked hard in support of this vital law, and it would be a grave mistake if it were allowed to sunset.''

In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the existing ban makes it illegal to ``manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic'' firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of several specific military features, such as folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds or grenade launchers. These weapons are dangerous and they should not be on America's streets.

The National Rifle Association has said that the ban is ineffective and unnecessary. The NRA asserts that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes. But this assertion is not supported by the facts. According to statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, from 1990 to 1994, assault weapons named in the ban constituted 4.82 percent of guns traced in criminal investigations. However, since the ban's enactment, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61 percent of the crime-related guns traced.

In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive.

I hope the letter from Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton will prompt President Bush to act to promote the passage of the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from former Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton be printed in the Record.

June 14, 2004.

President George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: We are pleased that you support

reauthorization of the federal Assault Weapons Act, which is

scheduled to expire in September. Each of us, along with

President Reagan, worked hard in support of this vital law,

and it would be a grave mistake if it were allowed to sunset.

There continues to be strong support for this law among our

nation's police officers who risk their lives every day to

protect the public. That is because they remember the days,

prior to the enactment of the law in 1994, when military-

style, semiautomatic firearms had become the weapons of

choice for gangs, drug traffickers, and paramilitary

extremist groups. The firearm death rate soared as criminals

used these weapons, outfitted with 20, 50 and even hundred

round ammunition clips, to kill, maim, and terrorize. We

cannot go back to those days.

At a time when terrorism continues to be a serious threat,

it is even more imperative that we renew the Assault Weapons

Act and limit access to military-style weapons and high-

capacity ammunition clips. But with upcoming recesses, there

are not many legislative days left for Congress to renew the

law. We urge you to make reauthorization of the Assault

Weapons Act a top priority for your Administration and spur

Congress to action. If we can be of assistance to you in this

regard, we are ready to do so.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford.

Bill Clinton.

Jimmy Carter.