Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is time also reserved before each vote for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member?

One minute each prior; and I wonder if the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire would be willing to amend his unanimous consent to make it in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this point on both votes.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, my amendment No. 3154 to the budget resolution would restore much-needed funding to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. The administration's budget slashes this program by $20 million, which amounts to a 63-percent cut to a program that helps save the lives of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing State and local law enforcement agencies with the resources to help buy body armor for their officers.

My amendment supports the allocation of $41 million in funding for bulletproof vest partnership grants to fully fund it at the authorized level of $50 million in fiscal year 2007. The increase in funds is offset by discretionary spending reductions.

Our former colleague Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who lacked bulletproof vests were killed. The federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.

We have successfully reauthorized this program three more times: in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004, and

most recently as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. It is now authorized at $50 million per year through fiscal year 2009.

Year after year, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program saves the lives and spares injuries of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful DOJ program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, more than 150 municipalities have used this partnership help to purchase 1,400 vests. Without the assistance this program offers, I daresay there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today.

Compounding the ongoing funding needs to help purchase vests, concerns from the law enforcement community over the effectiveness of body armor surfaced nearly 2 years ago when a Pennsylvania police officer was shot and critically wounded through his relatively new Zylon-based body armor vest. In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that test results indicated that used Zylon-based vests may not provide the intended level of ballistic resistance. Unfortunately, an estimated 200,000 of these faulty vests have been purchased--many with vest partnership funds--and now need to be replaced.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day.

I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. If the Senate approves this amendment to fully fund this program at $50 million, then we will be on our way to helping ease the burden faced by officers and their families and to further our mission to provide every police officer who needs a safe vest with the means to purchase one.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers two more lifetime appointments to U.S. courts. These confirmations will bring the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 234, including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, 134 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, under Democratic leadership, the Senate was almost twice as productive as under Republican leadership.

It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50 and the White House has failed to send nominees for more than half of those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the President established for himself, and today, more than half of the judicial vacancies, 27, are without nominations. One-third of those vacancies are already more than 180 days old, and one-third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without nominees.

If the White House would eliminate its partisan, political, and ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process and its emphasis on rewarding cronies and focus only on qualifications and consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering them for confirmation would be much easier.

Jack Zouhary, the nominee from Ohio, has the support of his Republican home State Senators, and Stephen G. Larson, the nominee from California, has the support of his Democratic home State Senators. They are the kind of qualified consensus nominees who are confirmed relatively easily.

Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA but by online journalists.

At a minimum that case and other recent revelations reinforce a point about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a Fourth Circuit judge. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.

The Senate now considers two more lifetime appointments to U.S. courts. These confirmations will bring the total number of judicial appointments, since January 2001, to 234, including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, 134 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, under Democratic leadership, the Senate was almost twice as productive as under Republican leadership.

It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50 and the White House has failed to send nominees for more than half of those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the President established for himself, and today, more than half of the judicial vacancies, 27, are without nominations. One-third of those vacancies are already more than 180 days old and one-third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without nominees.

If the White House would eliminate its partisan political and ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process and its emphasis on rewarding cronies and focus only on qualifications and consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering them for confirmation would be much easier.

Jack Zouhary, the nominee from Ohio, has the support of his Republican home-State Senators and Stephen G. Larson, the nominee from California, has the support of his Democratic home-State Senators. They are the kind of qualified consensus nominees who are confirmed relatively easily.

Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA, but by online journalists.

At a minimum that case and other recent revelations reinforce a point about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a Fourth Circuit judge. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the nomination of Judge Stephen Larson so that it can be done by voice vote. I see the distinguished leaders on the Senate floor. I don't think there is any objection.

That is my St. Patrick's Day gift to the body.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has agreed to unanimously approve this legislation to rename the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the Green Mountain National Forest as the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area. Along with Senator Jeffords, I introduced this legislation as what we believed is a fitting tribute to our friend and former colleague, Senator Robert Stafford.

Bob Stafford is an absolute giant in Vermont politics. He spent almost 30 years representing our great State first in the U.S. House of Representatives and then in the United States Senate. Prior to his arrival in Washington in the early 1960s, he served his fellow Vermonters closer to home holding a number of prominent State positions. He served as Rutland County prosecuting attorney, as Rutland County State's Attorney, as deputy State attorney general, and finally as our State's attorney general. From 1957-1959 Bob Stafford held the post of lieutenant governor, and in 1959 he went on to become Governor.

In 1960, Bob Stafford was elected to Vermont's sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He won five successive reelections. In September 1971, he resigned his House seat to accept appointment to the U.S. Senate following the death of Senator Winston Prouty. After winning a special election in January 1972, Bob proceeded to represent Vermont in the Senate during the next 17 years. I had the distinct privilege of

serving with him during all but two of those years. During his Senate service Bob Stafford became a national figure of stature, of vision and of courage in his leadership especially on environmental and education policy issues and legislation. His legacy endures in his many legislative achievements.

To honor our friend, Senator Jeffords and I introduced this legislation to name the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the Green Mountain National Forest as the ``Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area.'' White Rocks is among his most beloved natural areas in Vermont, and Bob Stafford protected more land in our State than anyone who came before him. I know he and Helen could actually see the towering white cliff face of White Rocks Mountain from their home. By passing this legislation, the Senate honors our former colleague and our friend.

Mr. President, it is regrettable, and it is frustrating, that once again we find ourselves having to speak out on the shortfalls in the budget resolution for key community and economic development programs. The budget before us slashes Federal assistance to distressed and underserved communities. These cuts are shortsighted, they are ill- advised, and they represent a significant retreat from our longstanding commitment to invest in our Nation's communities.

In just a few weeks, the Senate will again be asked to appropriate tens of billions more to help Iraq. Though the President's request for Iraq funds is once again off the budget so that it avoids our normal budget rules, the Iraq supplemental funding request once again is for real taxpayers' dollars--no less real than the domestic cuts that the Bush-Cheney budget proposes for the priorities of the American people here at home.

That is why I am proud to join Senators Murray and Sarbanes, as well as 14 more of our colleagues--17 of us in all--in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 07 budget resolution to provide for an increase of $1.3 billion to restore the community development block grants, or CDBG, to the fiscal year 04 level of $4.3 billion. We fully pay for the increase in funds by closing egregious tax loopholes that more than 90 Members of this Chamber have already gone on record in support of closing.

Our amendment is supported by those who know best how effective and important this program is to America's communities. The list of endorsements includes the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Black Mayors, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the National Association for County Community and Economic Development, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Council of State Community Development Agencies, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these groups in support of our amendment be printed in the Record.

The CDBG Program is the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to help States and localities meet the needs of low-income communities. CDBG funds vital housing rehabilitation, supportive services, public improvements, and economic development projects in communities across the Nation. It serves more than 1,100 entitlement communities, urban counties and States, and more than 3,000 rural communities. These investments help change the face of our communities for the better and help improve the standards of living of Americans across the Nation, right where they live, in their communities.

CDBG is one of the most effective Federal domestic programs helping to revitalize neighborhoods, and it has a proven record of results. For example, in 2005, Vermont used CDBG grants to rehabilitate 771 units of affordable housing and to help create or preserve more than 500 jobs, directly helping to raise the standard of in Vermont's communities. There are hundreds of similar stories across the Nation, but in each of them the message is the same: CDBG funds are critical building blocks for improving our communities, our neighborhoods, and our economy.

The CDBG formula allocation was $4.41 billion in 2001. Since then it has decreased by $670 million, or 15.2 percent, with a 5-percent cut in fiscal year 05 and a 10-percent cut in fiscal year 06. The budget resolution for the coming year would further reduce the formula funding by 25 percent, cutting the formula allocation by over a third in just 3 years. Communities that benefit from CDBG will be devastated if further cuts in funding are made to this program.

I recently led a bipartisan letter with Senator Coleman to the Budget Committee attesting to the effectiveness of CDBG and urging that it be funded at $4.3 billion in the coming fiscal year. Fifty-three Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle joined me in this letter, which I ask to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I wish to take a moment to explain the differences between the Murray-Sarbanes-Leahy CDBG amendment and the amendment offered by Senators Santorum and Coleman. The amendment we offer facilitates restoring these CDBG funds by increasing the budget cap by closing tax loopholes that the Senate has already supported closing, in previous votes. This, in turn, makes real money available to the Appropriations Committee to be able to spend for next year.

Increasing the cap is important because the budget resolution we are considering assumes domestic spending will be capped at the same level as the President's request. Simply put, the budget resolution assumes that funding for CDBG will be reduced by the same amount as the president has proposed, which would be a cut of $1 billion from fiscal year 06 levels.

A separate amendment offered by our colleagues, Senator Santorum and Senator Coleman, also supports an increase of funding for CDBG, but it would do so by asking the Appropriations Committee to impose across- the-board cuts on all other domestic programs.

Speaking as an appropriator, I can tell you that all their amendment will do if it passes is to tell the Appropriations Committee that the Senate supports CDBG. But that will not be enough to guarantee that the committee will hear and provide the Transportation-Treasury-HUD, TTHUD, Appropriations Subcommittee with a higher allocation to increase funding for CDBG.

My colleagues should note that the Santorum-Coleman amendment is the same as the CDBG amendment that passed last year. However, because it provided no additional funding to the Appropriations Committee, the TTHUD Subcommittee received an allocation

that was inadequate to fund all of the programs within its jurisdiction. CDBG was the program that was on the chopping block, suffering cuts of more than $400 million.

So if my colleagues want to simply signal their support for CDBG funding to the Appropriations Committee, then they should vote for the Santorum-Coleman message amendment. Unfortunately, if they choose to do that and that amendment passes at the expense of our amendment, they will find that when it comes time to write the TTHUD appropriations bill, they will have failed to protect this important program from further cuts.

The choice is clear. Those who want to vaguely express support for the CDBG Program can support the other amendment, which is a nice sentiment, like a Candygram. But for those who also really want to get the job done, I urge support of our amendment.

I challenge each Member to go back to their States and to take stock of the benefits that communities have reaped through CDBG investments. I challenge each Member to visit with their local community action groups and hear how they use the community services block grant to support the neediest in their communities. These programs fill a real need and have proven results.

A cut of $1 billion in Federal funds, which is proposed in this budget resolution, will result in the loss of at least $9 billion in matching funds from local and State governments and nonprofit and private sector investments. I fail to see the wisdom in dismantling programs that are so vital to our communities.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the Murray- Sarbanes-Leahy amendment and express their real support for these important programs.

Exhibit 1

March 14, 2006.

Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations thank you for

joining 52 of your colleagues in signing a letter (attached)

to the Budget Committee leadership in support of a budget

allocation sufficient to fund the Community Development Block

Grant (CDBG) program at $4.3 billion for FY 2007. The

resolution approved by the Senate Budget Committee last

Friday would not allow for such a funding level. In fact it

adopts the funding level proposed in the President's FY 2007

budget, which cuts CDBG formula grants by an additional $1

billion over this year's $3.71 billion. Today the Senate will

consider alternative amendments to the budget resolution to

increase CDBG funding. We support a Murray/Leahy/Sarbanes

amendment to increase funding for the CDBG program by

increasing the overall discretionary cap. It is offset by

closing corporate tax loopholes, an approach that has had

overwhelming support by a bipartisan group of Senators. This

is the only way that the Appropriations Committee can

increase CDBG funding because it means additional dollars.

Reluctantly, we cannot support an amendment by Senators

Santorum and Coleman that increases funding for CDBG paid for

by an across-the-board cut in other domestic programs

(Function 920). This amendment is similar to an amendment

offered by Senator Coleman last year that passed the Senate.

In spite of this, the final FY 2006 appropriations bill cut

CDBG formula grants by 10 percent.

We strongly urge you to vote for the Murray/Sarbanes/Leahy

amendment that would allow appropriators to restore the CDBG

formula amount to the FY 2004 funding level. Thank you for

your continued support of the CDBG program and the good work

it does in our nation's urban, suburban and rural areas.

Sincerely,

National Association of Counties.

National League of Cities.

National Conference of Black Mayors.

National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.

National Association for County Community and Economic

Development.

National Association of Housing and Redevelopment

Officials.

Council of State Community Development Agencies.

Enterprise.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation.

Mr. President, as we take stock during the second annual Sunshine Week, we confront the disturbing reality that the foundations of our open government are under direct assault from the first White House in modern times that is openly hostile to the public's right to know.

The right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, citizens are kept in the dark about key policy decisions that directly affect their lives. Without open government, citizens cannot make informed choices at the ballot box. Without access to public documents and a vibrant free press, officials can make decisions in the shadows, often in collusion with special interests, escaping accountability for their actions. And once eroded, these rights are hard to win back.

The right to know is nourished by openness and vigorous congressional oversight of Federal agencies, but both are sorely lacking, and government effectiveness and accountability have been among the casualties. The disastrous failure to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina is only the most recent example, but a glaring one. Despite misleading assertions in the storm's horrific aftermath, we now know that the White House was warned in advance that the levees could fail in a hurricane. We have belatedly seen videotapes in which President Bush was cautioned by FEMA officials of this great danger.

The Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, empowers the American people to pry information from their Government that agencies would prefer to keep locked away. Americans learned more about Abu Ghraib and conditions at Guantanamo from FOIA requests than from oversight by Congress.

As we celebrate FOIA's fourth decade as law, we also watch its erosion as a target of attacks such as when the administration pushed an overly broad FOIA waiver for the Department of Homeland Security's charter the single biggest rollback of FOIA in its 40-year history.

It has been nearly a decade since Congress has approved major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act. Last year during Sunshine Week, Senator Cornyn and I introduced bipartisan legislation, S.394, to curtail the assault on FOIA. The Open Government Act contains more than a dozen substantive provisions, designed to strengthen FOIA and close loopholes, to help FOIA requestors obtain timely responses to their requests, to ensure that agencies have strong incentives to act on FOIA requests, and to provide FOIA officials with all of the tools they need to make sure that our government remains open and accessible.

A second bill that I introduced with Senator Cornyn last year, the Faster FOIA Act, S.589, would specifically address the issue of agency delay in processing FOIA requests. We propose to establish a commission to review the persistent issue of delay and to make recommendations for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of requests. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee and awaits floor action.

Our free press and the consciences of whistleblowers also serve the public's right to know. We would not know of the domestic spying program conducted in secret by the National Security Agency, with the full approval of the White House, unless the press had revealed it last December. The Department of Justice is stonewalling Congress's efforts to obtain facts on this program while threatening to prosecute reporters who disclosed the illegal program to the public.

The Bush administration has kept vital facts secret by silencing scientists and experts. We saw it with the gagging of NASA scientist James Hansen, whose conclusions about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming differed with administration policy. This administration also secretly let lobbyists from polluting industries write rules on mercury emissions, overriding the advice of the EPA's scientists and even drawing a harsh rebuke from EPA's inspector general. This tacit war on science--trumping scientific evidence with ideology--has also victimized women's access to the Plan B pill and cut international family planning funds which help the poorest of the poor, even though the evidence is clear that these funds reduce the numbers of abortions.

This kind of secrecy produces bad policies, as we saw when the Bush administration tried to hide the true cost of its Medicare prescription drug plan from Congress and the American people. While they were twisting congressional arms for votes on the program, political leaders at Medicare told Congress the price tag was $400 billion. Medicare's own accountants projected the cost to be $500 billion to $600 billion, but one of those career staff, Richard Foster, was threatened with being fired if he told Congress the truth.

We saw it again when the political leadership of the Justice Department overruled career lawyers who found that Congressman Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan illegally diluted Black and Hispanic voting power. Career attorneys also found that a Georgia voter- identification law would discriminate against Black voters. The Department's political leaders dismissed these findings and quietly approved both plans. We only learned of these politically motivated decisions later when the press obtained documents and made them public.

In a situation that borders on the absurd, the intelligence agencies have

been quietly reclassifying documents that were open for years. This program began in 1999 but has exploded under this administration, which has reclassified more than 55,000 pages. Even the Archivist of the United States said he knew ``precious little'' of the program until it was revealed by the press.

The examples go on and on. The Bush administration has displayed a near-total disdain for the free press and the public's right to know.

Sunshine Week invites an inventory check on tools like the Freedom of Information Act that make real the public's right to know. Attacks on these tools only erode that right. A free, open, and accountable democracy is what our forefathers fought and died for, and it is the duty of each new generation to protect this vital heritage and inheritance.

Mr. President, my dear friend of over 30 years, Michael Berman, has just written his memoir, ``Living Large: A Big Man's Ideas on Weight, Success and Acceptance.'' Mike possesses one of the most astute political minds along with a generous heart and kind soul. I am proud of his courage in writing about his struggle with weight control and hope his book will encourage others to honestly confront and overcome their weight challenges.

This week, both The Washington Post and Roll Call reviewed Mike's book. I ask unanimous consent that those articles be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate will consider another lifetime appointment to a circuit court. The nominee is Leo Maury Gordon, who is nominated to serve on the U.S. Court or International Trade. Mr. Gordon is the court's longtime clerk, and he is very familiar with its important work. I urge all Senators, Republican and Democratic, to support this nomination.

His confirmation will bring the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 232, including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed in the 17 months that Democrats were in the Senate majority. In the other 45 months, 132 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, under Democratic leadership, the Senate was almost twice as productive as under Republican leadership.

It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50, and the White House has failed to send a nominee for more than half of those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the President established for himself, and today, half of the judicial vacancies, 27, are without a nomination. One-third of those vacancies are already more than 180 days old, and one-third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee.

If the White House would eliminate its partisan political and ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process and its emphasis on rewarding cronies and focus only on qualifications and consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering them for confirmation would be much easier. That is what this confirmation demonstrates.

Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination after information became public about this nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest.

At a minimum, this case reinforces a point about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, which were withdrawn for different reasons. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination.

When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans and when we are reviewing important law enforcement officials, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.

Mr. President, I filed an amendment to the bill on Tuesday and look forward to an opportunity to offer that amendment and have it considered by the Senate. My amendment is the honest services amendment, No. 2924.

The purpose of my amendment is to articulate more clearly the line that cannot be crossed without incurring criminal liability. If we are serious about lobbying reform, the Senate will adopt this amendment. It was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the scandal that has grown over the last years. If we are to restore public confidence, we need to provide better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government.

This amendment creates a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of honest services fraud involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives.

Under this amendment, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions.

The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors, or holding hidden financial interests, in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years' imprisonment, or both.

This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. The amendment makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without all of the hurdles of having to prove bribery or of working with the limited and nonspecific honest services fraud language in current Federal law.

The amendment also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much-needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense.

In addition, my amendment authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next 4 years, to give Federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate corruption and to hold lobbyists and other individuals accountable for improperly seeking to influence legislation and other official matters.

The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and MZM demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad ranging impact. These scandals undermine the public's confidence in our Government. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, Federal investigators are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham.

The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.

Because I strongly believe that public service is a public trust, I urge all Senators to support this amendment. If we are serious about reform and cleaning up this scandal, we will do so.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is going to pass an important piece of legislation, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, HR 683. The principal purpose of this law is to clarify Congress's intentions when it first passed the Federal Trademark Dilution Act over a decade ago.

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. The Court held that trademark holders had to show actual harm, not the likelihood of harm, from dilution before they could seek injunctions. As an original author and sponsor of the act, I know firsthand that this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution statue. What we did intend was to stop diluting before actual harm could be realized and the value of any reputable trademark debased.

H. R. 683 makes clear Congress's intent and corrects the law to provide that owners of famous trademarks can seek injunctions against anyone who attempts to use a mark that is likely to cause dilution. It also affords the court the ability to consider ``all relevant factors'' when determining whether a mark is ``famous.'' However, this legislation not intended to provide for injunctive or other relief against legitimate, third party trade in products manufactured under authority of the U.S. trademark owner of the distinctive, famous mark.

Furthermore, Senator Hatch and I were successful in including language that definitively shelters important constitutionally protected first amendment freedoms from being caught up in the liability net.

I thank Senators Hatch and Specter for their support in creating and passing this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, today we heard the sad news of the death of Dana Reeve. My wife Marcelle and I got to know, first, Christopher Reeve, who often traveled to Vermont. We met with him there, did things with him there, and with members of his family; and then, subsequently through Chris, with Dana Reeve. We know they had only been married for 3 short years when Christopher Reeve had a terrible accident which left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Like so many of the friends of both of them, we saw how Dana kept by his side. They raised their young son, she encouraging Chris at every step along the way.

It was my privilege to see and be with the two of them many times throughout that, as she helped him with his foundation, to help those with spinal cord injuries. And I heard him say so many times he could not have possibly done this without her steadfast help.

She said at one point that she learned that life does not take the turns you might think it would but that she would continue to stay with Chris and help him.

I remember when the sad time came for the end of his life, and the funeral and the eulogies and discussions that I had with her after that, and her commitment to go forward to help with the foundation and to raise their son.

Then, with the stunning news just a few months ago that she had lung cancer, in typical fashion, she said she felt she could beat that and would do--she had the best doctors--all the steps possible. Then in the last few days she got more and more ill. And, of course, today we received the news she had died.

I think of her talking about her years at Middlebury College in Vermont, going to Vermont with Chris--the two of them giving us so much.

A devoted wife and mother, a talented singer and actress, a determined and dedicated activist, Dana Reeve was the embodiment of grace and courage in the face of so many staggering challenges.

A graduate of Vermont's Middlebury College, Dana pursued both acting and singing, appearing on television programs, on Broadway, and on other stages across the country. When she married Christopher Reeve, a dear friend of so many of us across this land, she could not know what direction her life would take.

I first met Chris in the 1980s and had the good fortune of spending time with him in my home State of Vermont. Over the years, Marcelle and I came to count Chris among our friends. I am privileged to say that Dana became a dear friend of ours as well.

When tragedy struck Chris and Dana's lives in 1995, just 3 short years after their marriage, Dana's love and courage became the focal point of so many stories. Left a quadriplegic in a tragic equestrian accident, Chris repeatedly credited Dana's constant care, companionship, and love with bringing him out of shadowy sadness he felt in the first months after the accident. Together they opened the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center, designed to teach paralyzed people to live more independently. They also chaired the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, which provides funds for research on paralysis.

When Chris died in 2004, Dana--her courage never wavering--assumed the foundation's chairmanship, and she came to the Halls of Congress to make the case for easing the restrictions on stem cell research. Her unrelenting efforts to improve the quality of life for sufferers of paralysis have led to the distribution of more than $8 million in grant funding to support programs designed to improve the daily lives of paralyzed people. Despite being diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005, Dana continued her advocacy efforts. In 2005, the American Cancer Society named her Mother of the Year.

Both Chris and Dana instilled in so many a hope and inspiration that can only come from conquering adversity. Their generous, vibrant, and compassionate souls have touched an entire nation. Their young son Will will no doubt look to that strength as he continues through life. Two years ago, I mourned the loss of my friend, Chris Reeve. Today, I join so many in mourning the loss of Dana, his inspiration, and ours as well.

It is sad when two good people like this are taken so early. I know I speak for so many tens of thousands of their friends not just around this country but around the world.

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

Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join Senator Snowe and others in supporting this legislation to provide additional funding for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP.

This legislation will shift the $1 billion in fiscal year 2007 funding, which we recently enacted in the budget reconciliation bill, to the current fiscal year, so it can be used this winter. Providing these needed funds in this way is not the best approach to get this done, but with Vermonters facing record heating bills and no other choices available to us at this crucial juncture, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The fact is the burden of record heating prices this winter could financially wipe out many families and elderly Vermonters. No family in our Nation should be forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table for their children. No older American should have to decide between buying life- saving prescriptions or paying utility bills. Unfortunately, these stark choices are a reality for too many Vermonters and for too many other Americans across the Nation.

This legislation will bring the total funding available for LIHEAP in fiscal year 2006 up to nearly $3 billion. Certainly more is needed. That is why I have voted four times to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion. Bipartisan amendments offered to the Department of Defense appropriations bill, the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD Appropriations bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, and the tax reconciliation bill received a majority of the Senate's support. Unfortunately, the majority party would not allow these amendments the opportunity for straight up-or- down votes, and we were blocked from securing these needed supplements for LIHEAP in our earlier efforts.

The Energy Information Agency forecasts that households heating with natural gas will experience an average increase of 35 percent over last winter. Households heating with oil will see an increase of 23 percent, and households using propane can expect an increase of 17 percent. Compounding these difficulties for families needing this help, wages are not keeping pace with inflation. The Real Earnings report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls were lower in December 2005 than they were a year ago, after accounting for inflation. Working families are continuing to lose ground, meaning more families also need LIHEAP assistance this year. Paychecks are being stretched thinner as families face higher prices for home heating, for health care, and for education. Vermont families and seniors need this relief from high energy costs, and they need it now.

As I have said, this is not my preferred approach to providing LIHEAP funding, but Vermonters cannot wait for a better option. This help is needed now. I call on the leadership in the House of Representatives and on President Bush to support this legislation and to ensure its immediate enactment. I also urge the administration to join the bipartisan majority in Congress to replenish LIHEAP funding for next winter.

Mr. President, recent press reports reveal that despite its creation more than a year ago, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has yet to hire any staff members or even hold a single meeting. This board was established by a law signed in December 2004 in response to recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Now, several months into 2006, we learn from a Newsweek article that the board's members will finally be sworn in at the White House this month. I will ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record. Starting up the work of this important board, particularly in this time of unprecedented intrusion into the privacy of Americans by the executive branch, is shamefully overdue.

On December 14, 2004, the President signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Section 1061 of this act implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish an independent board within the Executive Office of the President to fill a clear void in Government for protecting Americans' liberties.

Creating the board was no easy feat. The Bush-Cheney administration initially resisted the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for a privacy board, unpersuasively asserting that it was already protecting privacy and civil liberties. The administration then tried to circumvent a congressionally authorized, independent board by issuing an Executive order establishing an anemic alternative. That entity was not independent, had no authority to access information, had little accountability, and was comprised solely of administration officials from the law enforcement and intelligence communities--the very communities in need of oversight. It was the proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. But many of us in Congress were committed to creating an effective board in keeping with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

We succeeded, and the President signed the bill creating the board well over a year ago, but the White House's delays and resistance continued. Last May 11, I joined Senators Durbin, Collins, and Lieberman in writing to the President to inquire why there had not yet been any nominations and to urge him to nominate board members as soon as possible. We also expressed concern about the inadequate funding in the White House budget proposal, which would only have provided an underwhelming and insufficient $750,000 for its operations. Fortunately, the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I serve, raised the amount to $1.5 million to ensure a better start for the board.

President Bush waited until June of last year to appoint three members of the board, and to nominate the chairman and vice chairman of the board, who were confirmed by the Senate last month. No board members have yet been sworn in. Meanwhile, as Newsweek reported, the White House's new budget, released last month, listed no money for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Administration officials have said that this omission came only because they decided not to itemize funding for offices within the White House, but they could not explain why other White House offices were individually listed, yet this board was not.

Regrettably, the delays and insufficient funds suggest that the Bush- Cheney administration is simply going through the motions, rather than following through on a meaningful commitment to the Privacy Board. As the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, ``The Administration was never interested in this.''

This board is too important for us to simply go through the motions. Prior to the board, there was no office within the Government to oversee the collective impact of Government actions and powers on our liberties. This is a critical blind spot. We have increased and consolidated the authority of an already-powerful Government in an effort to address the realities of terrorism and modern warfare. As Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, noted in a Judiciary Committee hearing on August 19, 2004, these developments represent ``an astounding intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans that is routine today in government.''

In the months since Mr. Hamilton made this statement, we have learned of reports of far more disturbing and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, including warrantless wiretapping in violation of the laws of the land, as well as surveillance of ordinary Americans that may include a group of Quakers in Vermont. It is more important than ever to have a meaningful entity ensuring that the Government pursue crucial antiterrorism efforts without giving up the privacy and civil liberties so important to all Americans.

The delays in setting up the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the failures to properly fund it show that the Bush-Cheney administration does not take this responsibility seriously. We must make sure that we do take it seriously, on behalf of the American people.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Newsweek article to which I referred.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I note that two of the nominees, one from West Virginia and another from Georgia, are represented in the Senate for West Virginia with two Democratic Senators, both of whom support the nominee. Georgia has two Republican Senators, both of whom support the nominee. They have been moved very quickly.

I mention this because the nominees are the 229th, 230th, and 231st of the judges nominated by President Bush to be confirmed. It shows when the White House works with Members of both parties how quickly they get filled. It is an indication when the White House takes time to work with Members of both parties to fill the judgeships, they move rather quickly.

This evening we will see three more of President Bush's nominees for lifetime appointments to the Federal courts confirmed. With these confirmations, the total number of the President's judicial appointees rises to 231, including the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. This is an impressive number, considering the time that was needed to devote to the Supreme Court vacancies over the last year--President Bush made a series of three nominations for the successor to Justice O'Connor--and the administration's slow pace of nominations for much of this year.

Tonight's nominees come from West Virginia, Georgia and Puerto Rico. Thomas Johnston of West Virginia has the support of his two home-State Democratic Senators. Thomas Batten of Georgia has the support of his two home-State Republican Senators. The nominee from Puerto Rico was not opposed in the Judiciary Committee. These nominees, the 229th, 230th and 231st judges nominated by this President to be confirmed, show once again that when the White House works with Senators from both parties, vacancies on the Federal bench can quickly be filled. It is when the White House refuses to consult with the Senate, or having mentioned nominees' names, ignores the advice of the Senate, or chooses to pick a fight for partisan purposes, that we have trouble.

Considering how hard the Judiciary Committee has worked to uphold its part in the process of confirming judges, it is unfortunate that the President is not fulfilling the commitments he made to be a uniter and to complete his work in advance of vacancies. Even after these three nominees are confirmed, there will still be more than 50 vacancies in the Federal circuit and district courts. Despite the fanfare with which the President announced that he would be sending nominations for upcoming vacancies in advance and in no event later than 180 days after a vacancy, there are at least 24 current vacancies, nearly half, for which there is no nominee at all. Some of those 24 vacancies have been sitting empty more than a year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the President established for himself, and today, of the 24 vacancies waiting for nominees, 10 are already more than 180 days old.

If the White House would eliminate its partisan political and ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process, and focus only on qualifications and consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering them for confirmation would be much easier. As tonight's confirmations demonstrate, Democrats in the Senate have been cooperative.

I congratulate these nominees and their families on their confirmations.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.