Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to the widespread problem of human trafficking. It is the world's fastest growing criminal enterprise. It is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. Annually, nearly 1 million people, mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including nearly 18,000 persons into the United States.

The fact is that the violent subjugation and exploitation of women and girls is ongoing and not enough is being done by governments to address it. Take, for example, reports that in a marketplace in Skopje, Macedonia, women are forced to walk around a stage naked while brothel owners point their fingers to make a selection. Women are bought and sold like cattle and treated like slaves.

In Krong Koh Kong, Cambodia, 14-year-old girls stand outside a row of shacks where they charge the equivalent of $2 or $3 for sex, half of which goes to their pimps. These girls, many of whom have AIDS, are discarded when they become too sick to continue working.

Even in the United States, we are not immune to the scourge of human trafficking. Earlier this month, Federal agents raided brothels and businesses in San Francisco and arrested two dozen people allegedly operating an international sex-trafficking ring. Nearly 100 South Korean women were lured to illegally enter the United States; whereupon, they were held captive and forced to work as prostitutes.

Around the world, women and girls are sold as slaves and forced to engage in unprotected sex because clients offer more money for such acts. These women have no control over their lives, their health or their futures. Trafficking victims in the sex industry are exposed to HIV/AIDS at much higher rates than the general population, with no access to medical care. The fear of infection of AIDS among customers has driven traffickers to recruit younger girls, erroneously perceived to be too young to have been infected.

Last month, the State Department issued its fifth annual Trafficking in Persons report, which ranks the efforts of 150 countries to combat human trafficking. Some have observed that the United States has been soft on certain Asian countries thought to be lax on trafficking, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India, and Thailand. Because these countries are vital allies in fighting terrorism, they may have been treated with greater leniency.

On the other hand, this year, the State Department identified four Middle Eastern allies--Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--as being among the worst offenders of human trafficking and whose governments are doing little to control it. Despite the fact that these countries have been important partners of the United States, their inadequate efforts on human trafficking demand a call to action by the United States.

Mr. President, this report is merely one first step in combating a growing international problem. We must call upon governments around the world to renew their efforts against this form of modern-day slavery.

We must rededicate our efforts to the prevention of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of traffickers. Nowhere on Earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement. To deny a person their right to freedom, is an affront to the ideals established nearly 57 years ago in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can and must do better.

Mr. President, last week, the Committee on the Judiciary

did something that the administration has been urging us to do all year--we reported a bill that reauthorizes every expiring provision of the USA PATRIOT Act. This achievement was particularly notable for its bipartisanship. Following months of intense negotiations involving members from both sides of the aisle, we produced a consensus bill that won the support of every member of the committee. I commend Chairman Specter and all members of the committee for their work on this important legislation. We made possible something that many of us would have thought impossible just a few weeks ago: a PATRIOT Act improvement and reauthorization package approved by every Member of the U.S. Senate.

The bill we pass today--S. 1389, as reported--has three key elements.

First, the bill protects the privacy interests of Americans. It requires the Government to convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records or other sensitive personal information. It also requires the Government to notify the target of a ``sneak and peek'' search within 7 days, instead of the undefined delay that is currently permitted by the PATRIOT Act.

Second, the bill enhances judicial oversight and protects free speech rights. It gives the recipient of an order for sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in court on the same grounds as they could challenge a grand jury subpoena. It also provides a right to challenge the gag order that currently prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out even if they feel the Government is violating their rights.

Third, the bill increases transparency and ensures accountability. One of my principal objectives in this reauthorization process has been to introduce more sunshine into the PATRIOT Act. The reported bill requires increased reporting by the Department of Justice on its use of several PATRIOT Act powers, including roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``sneak and peak'' search warrants. It also sets a 4-year ``sunset'' on three domestic surveillance powers with great potential to affect civil liberties.

Like the PATRIOT Act itself, S. 1389 is not the bill that I, or any Member, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. I would have liked the bill to include additional checks and balances on certain Government surveillance powers granted or expanded by the PATRIOT Act. I would have liked the bill to include more sunshine provisions, as well as additional sunsets. I regret that the bill repeals a sunset provision that Congress enacted last year and that is not due to expire until the end of 2006.

While far from perfect, S. 1389 is a good bill, which moves the law in what I believe is the right direction. The bill is also substantially better, from a civil liberties perspective, than either the House bill, H.R. 3199, or the bill reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, S. 1266. And as the product of true bipartisanship--an 18-to-0 vote is something you do not see every day in the Senate Judiciary Committee--it is a bill in which the American people can and should have confidence. I hope that the bipartisan effort that got us to this point will carry over to the conference and speed this bill to final passage.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in Nepal, which has received too little attention by the Congress.

I will not take the time to discuss in detail the history of this tiny country wedged between China and India. Suffice it to say that not only is Nepal among the world's least developed countries, it is also facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency and a political crisis instigated by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed state.

Last year, after receiving disturbing reports of widespread human rights violations by the Royal Nepalese Army, including arrests, disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings of civilians, the Congress imposed a number of conditions on our military aid to Nepal. Those conditions required the Nepalese Government to (1) comply with habeas corpus orders issued by the Supreme Court of Nepal; (2) cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission to identify and resolve all security related cases of individuals in government custody; (3) grant the National Human Rights Commission unimpeded access to all places of detention; and (4) take effective steps to end torture by security forces and prosecute members of such forces who are responsible for gross violations of human rights.

Unfortunately, not only have those conditions not been met, the situation was made significantly worse on February 1 when King Gyanendra, with the backing of the security forces, dissolved the multiparty government, arrested and jailed political opponents, human rights activists and journalists, and declared a state of emergency. The state of emergency has since been lifted, but civil liberties, including freedom of the press and association, remain restricted, the former Prime Minister has been jailed for corruption by an extrajudicial, politically motivated anticorruption commission, and arrests of journalists and democracy activists continue.

Speaking with one voice, the United States, Great Britain, and India condemned the King's actions as a setback for democracy. They said it would make it more difficult to resolve the Maoist problem, and each country imposed varying types of restrictions on military aid. Since then, however, the American Embassy has adopted a more nuanced approach, sending mixed messages that have been widely interpreted as giving equal consideration and validity to the views and actions of the King and the political parties. Unfortunately, the impression today of Nepalese pro-democracy and human rights activists is that the United States is not fully behind them.

The army insists it is complying with habeas corpus orders of the supreme court. This is deceiving, however, because the security forces, often in plain clothes, have been re-arresting people who the court has ordered released. In some instances they have waited at the courthouse steps to take people back into custody immediately after they are set free by the court. Since these arrests are often made without charges, the whereabouts and treatment of these people is often unknown.

In April, the term of the National Human Rights Commission expired and the Government reconstituted the Commission in a manner that was incompatible with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution. The membership of the Commission has also changed, with the exception of the chairman. Not surprisingly, none of the current members, appointed by the palace, expressed publicly any disagreement with the King's February 1 actions, including the arrests and curtailing of civil liberties. The chairman of the Commission even expressed support for the King's actions. This has caused legitimate concerns about the Commission's independence.

There is conflicting information about the Government's cooperation with the National Human Rights Commission in resolving security related cases of persons in custody. According to human rights groups, the situation has not improved. The Commission has said it is getting better access to places of detention, but it is not clear how meaningful this access is. We know there are large numbers of people who have disappeared, yet we are informed that when members of the Commission visit army barracks they have seen few detainees, are led around by army escorts, and that some barracks where detainees were reported to be held were completely empty. There is a concern that the army is summarily executing prisoners. Meanwhile, the International Red Cross has suspended its visits to prisoners because of the army's failure to provide the access it requires.

The issue of ending torture and prosecuting members of the security forces who commit gross violations of human rights is also difficult to assess. According to human rights groups, torture is routinely practiced and impunity remains the norm. The army claims it disciplines its members who violate human rights, but many of the cases it cites do not involve human rights violations. According to the army officer who heads the army's human rights cell, complaints about human rights violations by the army are ``much ado about nothing.'' Those words speak volumes.

Under our law, the Secretary of State is to determine whether the conditions have been met. As a sponsor of the law, I would expect that prior to making any determination she would consult with representatives of reputable human rights groups, including the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with the British and Indian Governments. It is important that we and they be seen as united on these issues. In that regard, I would hope that she would consider the implications of such a determination in the context of the larger political crisis. We do not want to do anything that could be seen as further evidence that the United States supports the King when he is using the army and police to crush the forces of democracy.

Last week, the Senate revisited the conditions on our military aid for Nepal. Since those conditions were enacted prior to February 1, they have in large measure been eclipsed by subsequent events. The Senate determined that modifications were needed, and those changes were adopted unanimously on July 20, 2005, in an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State-Foreign Operations-appropriations bill.

Nepal is a breathtakingly beautiful country facing immense challenges. The majority of its people are illiterate, subsistence farmers who are caught between the Maoists, who extort money and food, forcibly recruit their children, and commit atrocities, and the army which mistreats and often shoots those suspected of sympathizing with the Maoists.

The King, while professing to support democracy, seems determined to take the country back to the pre-1990 feudal days. This is not the first time he has dismissed the Prime Minister, and since February 1 he has surrounded himself with elderly advisers from the Panchayat era. He has ignored repeated urgings by our ambassador, and other governments, to sit down with representatives of the political parties to develop a plan for the prompt restoration of multiparty democracy.

As in any country where multiparty democracy has existed for only a decade and a half, Nepal's fledgling political parties suffer from internal divisions and are struggling to establish their credibility with the Nepalese people. This should surprise no one. Democracy is never perfect, and that is particularly true in an impoverished, isolated kingdom whose people have been ruled by a monarchy that ignored their needs for centuries. Yet, despite these obstacles, Nepalese journalists, political activists and civil society continue to speak out.

What is the alternative? A Maoist ``people's republic'' that could plunge Nepal into darkness? A return to an active monarchy that is accountable to no one?

Nepal is at an historic juncture. The Maoists have made steady gains over the past decade. Once a minor irritant, today they are a national menace. Even since 2001, when King Gyanendra ascended the throne and became commander in chief of the army, the Maoists have grown stronger. Although they are unable to hold territory or to seize power in Katmandu, they pose an increasing threat to the security and livelihoods of Nepal's people.

The King has made a tragic blunder, and the Nepalese people are paying a heavy price.

Former Prime Minister Deuba is in prison, which the State Department has rightly called a setback for democracy. This week there were new arrests. On July 25, several dozen journalists and civil society leaders were arrested and detained for over 24 hours during a peaceful protest. On July 27, a pro-democracy student leader, Gagan Thapa, was arrested while attempting to visit fellow detained student leaders. Mr. Thapa is reportedly being held on suspicion of sedition. His arrest is a threat to all democracy activists and should be strongly condemned by the State Department.

The King's strongest card is the army, but it lacks an effective counterinsurgency capability, it cannot defeat the Maoists in territory as rugged and isolated as parts of Afghanistan, and it has abused and alienated the very people it is supposed to protect. The army needs to demonstrate that it is worthy, if it wants U.S. support.

Earlier this year, in order to avoid criticism at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the King agreed to permit the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to open an office in Nepal and deploy human rights monitors. This is a welcome development, which the U.S. should strongly support. If the UN monitors are provided with unimpeded access, they should be able to determine if the Maoists are prepared to stop attacking civilians and recruiting children, and if the army is serious about respecting international humanitarian law.

Recently, the U.N. Secretary General's Special Adviser traveled to Nepal to assess the situation. He concluded that a solution to the crisis rests on three elements: ``a return to constitutional order and multiparty democracy, an end to hostilities, and inclusive national dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of conflict.'' The U.N. has a long history in Nepal, and it could play a key facilitating role on each of these elements. I would hope that the State Department would publicly support this.

No one should minimize the challenges. The Maoists have yet to demonstrate that they are ready to abide by a ceasefire, which should be a prerequisite for negotiations on their political demands. But our policy should be unambiguous. Democracy is the only viable alternative, and we should make clear that we unequivocally reject the King's imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and that we support the political parties. Whether that means the restoration of the 1999 Parliament or the formation of a new constituent assembly, is for the Nepalese people to decide, but there should be no doubt that we support a political process that is open, transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people.

Democracy and dialogue are the key to peace in Nepal, and we should do everything possible to reaffirm our willingness to work with the political parties, with Nepalese civil society, the Indian Government, the British Government, other key countries, and with the United Nations, towards that end.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, which if agreed to by the Senate-House conference committee will apply to U.S. military aid for Nepal for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice.

For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to abandon their practices.

Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most vulnerable victims of medical malpractice.

Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their medical malpractice insurance premiums.

A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well- founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced by the insurance industry.

The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real

terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on to lawyers and victims.

In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years 2000 to 2004, net premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims payments increased by less than 6 percent.

I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims.

What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory response.

As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the study be printed in the Record.

To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing problems, do not face as great a crisis as others.

But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these laws or pay the consequences.

Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance companies.

This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the patients that they serve.

Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran- Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with baseball.

If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real competition in the insurance marketplace.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice.

For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to abandon their practices.

Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most vulnerable victims of medical malpractice.

Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their medical malpractice insurance premiums.

A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well- founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced by the insurance industry.

The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real

terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on to lawyers and victims.

In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years 2000 to 2004, net premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims payments increased by less than 6 percent.

I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims.

What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory response.

As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the study be printed in the Record.

To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing problems, do not face as great a crisis as others.

But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these laws or pay the consequences.

Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance companies.

This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the patients that they serve.

Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran- Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with baseball.

If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real competition in the insurance marketplace.

Mr. President, I realize we are up against a time limit. I ask unanimous consent that my comments appear as though in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to bring people up to date on where we are on the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.

It is now a little over a week since President Bush made a dramatic evening announcement of his intention to nominate John Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Senate, we haven't received this nomination. It has not come up yet. Nonetheless, we are well on the way to preparation for the Senate's process in considering the nomination.

During the past weeks, some of us have met with Judge Roberts. We have urged him to be forthcoming at his upcoming hearing. The Judiciary Committee has already sent him a questionnaire seeking background information. Most importantly, Chairman Specter and I have already begun laying the groundwork for full and fair hearings which we are both committed to holding. I expect that we will soon be able to announce the Judiciary Committee's schedule for those hearings.

Late yesterday, the White House provided some documents from Mr. Roberts' time when he served as special counsel to Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan administration. None of us had requested these particular documents but, of course, we are always happy to receive anything they want to send. There are at least three categories of documents from Mr. Roberts' years in the executive branch that are relevant to this nomination.

The second group relates to Mr. Roberts' work from 1982 to 1986 as an associate White House counsel under the supervision of White House Counsel Fred Fielding. These are apparently kept in the Reagan Library in California.

Yesterday, in our continuing effort to expedite the process, we sent a letter to the White House asking that the files from those years be made available as quickly as possible, and to help speed it up, we identified by name the files we wished to be priorities. I hope the reported statements by White House officials over the last couple of days indicating they expect it will take 3 or 4 weeks to make these materials available are in error and, instead,

they can be made available on a prompt basis, not a delayed basis. Otherwise, it would almost appear--I certainly wouldn't want to suggest the White House would do this--that they are trying to make sure the documents arrive after the hearings and not before them or arrive so close to the time of the hearings, there would be no time to review them. I trust there will be those at the White House who would understand this would be the wrong way to proceed and would actually in the long run end up adding more time to the process.

The third category of files is from Mr. Roberts' work when he was a political appointee in the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General. He served as Kenneth Starr's principal deputy during the prior Bush administration. The reason I say these are important, the President said that his work at this time was one of the reasons he selected Judge Roberts as his nominee. Of course, the President has every right to consider whatever reasons for a Supreme Court nominee. Having said that, however, in carrying out our responsibilities, it is appropriate that the Senate also be entitled to the same kind of information that the White House weighed in making its decision about this nomination. In other words, if this work is one of the reasons they say he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, all the more reason the 100 Members of the Senate should be able to see it and make up our own minds.

Actually, it might be the most informative of the documents we are going to seek. We could get a practical sense of how, when, and why politics and the law intersect for him. I am not expecting to seek production of all the files and the hundreds of matters on which Mr. Roberts worked in those critical years. Nobody is asking for that. Rather, in our effort to cooperate and expedite the process, we are putting together a targeted catalog of documents. I hope we can work with Chairman Specter to send a reasonable bipartisan request for a selected group of those files.

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter we sent to the White House yesterday be printed in the Record.

When we review the documents volunteered by the White House, obviously, we are going to be asking, Is this more of the old trick of flooding us with stacks of really unimportant materials in order to divert attention from those that matter the most? I hope the White House will begin to work with us instead of acting unilaterally.

There is one very easy way. They could send up documents that make no sense. They could say, Here is 400 pages of something he had on his desk every day when he was working as a political appointee of the Justice Department, and send us the telephone book. That is 400 pages. It was on his desk. It is not very helpful.

So the bottom line is this: The White House is eager to supply documents it selected and certainly provided with great fanfare, but we have yet to receive the documents we have, in fact, requested. It is an unfortunate pattern we have seen too often. Of course, the White House has available to it all the documents. The President has spoken about the designee's work in the Reagan White House and at the Bush Justice Department. But they have yet to share those materials with the Senate.

Other nominations have run into trouble when this White House has decided to let the Senate see only what the White House wants the Senate to see. If the White House's midnight announcement on Monday that was reportedly embargoed to deny Democratic Senators an opportunity to comment is, contrary to appearances, actually intended to begin a dialog about documents, then I welcome it. Of course, if it is intended to unilaterally preempt a discussion about documents the Senate may need and is entitled to, then this is regrettable.

Past administrations, Republican and Democratic, have been willing cooperatively to work with the Senate to accommodate its requests for documents. There are ample precedents in both parties documenting such cooperation. I believe the Senate is going to need the White House's full cooperation to expedite the scheduling of this process as the President has requested.

Let us be serious. Now that the White House has gotten the stagecraft out of the way, let's go back to working on the substance of the Senate's work on this very important nomination. The President has, rightfully so, announced his choice. Now the Senate must rise to the challenge and do its work. To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. A Supreme Court Justice is not there to represent either the Republican or Democratic Party; they are there to represent all 280 million Americans. The Senate is supposed to find, Is this the person the American people deserve, all 280 million of them?

That takes time, it takes the cooperation of the nominee, and it takes the cooperation of the administration. It means that Republicans, as well as Democrats, have to take our constitutional obligations on behalf of the American people seriously.

Let us remember this is not to see who scores political points. This is to determine how we protect the rights of all Americans--the ultimate check and balance for all Americans. This is somebody who could well serve until the year 2030 or beyond.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last month, the debate over the nomination of Judge William Pryor to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals included a discussion of Judge Pryor's call to repeal section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark statute--because, as he asserted in congressional testimony, it ``is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' His testimony demonstrated that Judge Pryor is more concerned with preventing an ``affront'' to the States' dignity than with guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote.

In the Republican defense of Judge Pryor, it was suggested that Congressman John Lewis, a stalwart leader of the civil rights movement, somehow agreed with Judge Pryor's opposition to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a statement Congressman Lewis had made about a specific redistricting plan.

Congressman Lewis has made clear many times, most recently in a July 14 letter to me, his disagreement with the views of Judge Pryor and his strong support for the Voting Rights Act--and particularly section 5. Congressman Lewis wrote:

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There

is a continued, proven need for the pre-clearance provisions

of the Voting Rights Act, which ensure that local and state

jurisdiction do not develop laws that intentionally or

unintentionally discriminate against groups who may have

little or no voice in the establishment of those laws.

His statements of support for one particular redistricting plan in no way diminish his commitment to the Voting Rights Act.

Congressman Lewis believes, as do I, that the Voting Rights Act is our most important protection guaranteeing that no individuals or groups are without a voice in this democracy. As he so eloquently noted:

The history of the right to vote in America is a history of

conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people

died trying to protect that right. I was beaten and jailed

because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle

for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience.

The experience of the last two presidential elections tells

us that the struggle is not over and that the special

provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary.

I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Lewis's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

In contrast, Judge Pryor's statements about section 5 reflect a long-discredited view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has rejected the claim that section 5 is an ``affront'' to our system of federalism. Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or William Rehnquist, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential to our democracy--no a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.''

Indeed, Congressman Lewis sponsored a resolution, which is being considered on the floor of the House today, commemorating the passage of the Voting Rights Act 40 years ago this summer. The resolution recalls the struggle for the act's landmark protections--from the brutal suppression of marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, on ``Bloody Sunday'' in March 1965, to the passage of the bill by a bipartisan Congress months later--and reaffirms its importance. Forty years after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, Congressman Lewis and I remain committed to this essential piece of legislation.

Exhibit 1

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2005.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Leahy: During the Senate debate on the

nomination of Judge William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court

of Appeals, Senator Saxby Chambliss quoted a few words of my

testimony in the case of the State of Georgia v. John

Ashcroft, and implied that I agree with Judge Pryor's

assessment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I take

issue with Senator Chambliss's remarks and want to make clear

that his reference to my remarks were taken out of context.

I regret that my colleague, the senior Senator from

Georgia, would use my support of a Georgia redistricting plan

to justify the confirmation of Justice William Pryor to the

11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I strongly disagree with the

views of Judge Pryor and do not think he is fit to serve.

I further regret that Senator Chambliss would use my very

general statements to suggest that I am not in favor of

renewing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There is a continued,

proven need for the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting

Rights Act, which ensure that local and state jurisdictions

do not develop laws that intentionally or unintentionally

discriminate against groups who may have little or no voice

in the establishment of those laws.

We have come a long way in the last two decades, and

certainly have come a long way since the 1960's, however,

voting obstacles and disparities still exist for far too many

minorities. In Florida in 2000, voters were confused by their

ballots, polling equipment broke down, and polls did not open

as scheduled. In Ohio in 2004, many people stood in what

appeared to be unmovable lines for eight and nine hours

trying to exercise their right to vote. There were an

inadequate number of voting machines and in some instances,

bogus officials were sent to polling stations and were found

disseminating misinformation and questioning the choices of

voters.

As a result of these problems, many Americans were denied

the right to vote. These truths continue to demonstrate the

importance of the Voting Rights Act to prevent discrimination

and to ensure that people are not denied the right to vote.

The vote is the most powerful, nonviolent tool that our

citizens have in a democratic society, and nothing but

nothing should discourage, hamper or interfere with the right

of every citizen to cast a vote for the person of their

choice.

The history of the right to vote in America is a history of

conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people

died trying to protect that right. I was beaten, and jailed

because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle

for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience.

The experience of the last two presidential elections tells

us that the struggle is not over and that the special

provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. We

should not take a step backward, when there is still much to

be done to ensure every vote and every voter counts.

As we work toward reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we

must move in a deliberative manner, conduct open and adequate

hearings, and ensure that we create the appropriate

legislative history and factual findings. I look forward to

working with you to protect the voting rights of all

Americans, by reauthorizing and strengthening the provisions

of the Voting Rights Act.

Sincerely,

John Lewis,

Member of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the Howrigan family of Fairfield, VT, who recently celebrated their annual family reunion.

The Howrigan family is a bedrock of Franklin County and Vermont agriculture, and has done much to carry on our State's agricultural stewardship tradition.

I have known many members of the Howrigan family for years and have come to appreciate the sound counsel on dairy issues and other aspects of farm policy.

Mr. President, I thank the Howrigan family for their service to Vermont agriculture and their communities, for they represent the finest tradition of our rural State.

I ask unanimous consent that a July 24, 2005, Burlington Free Press article featuring and honoring this wonderful Vermont family be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate J.J. Hamilton on his retirement as Director of Aviation at the Burlington International Airport.

J.J. and I have been friends since our days together at St. Michael's College, and it has been a great pleasure working with him over the years on aviation, expansion, and economic development issues at the airport in Burlington.

J.J. has been with the airport for 21 years, serving for the past 15 as its top manager. Under his direction, the Burlington airport has been transformed from a sleepy, one-gate operation into an award- winning, 10-gate facility that is a wonderful gateway to our great State of Vermont. The airport has grown to become an important engine in our State's economy.

Perhaps the best words to describe J.J.'s leadership in Burlington are ``measured and responsible.'' As head of Vermont's largest airport, and one that is municipally owned, he has had to delicately balance the urge for large-scale expansion with his financial responsibility to the citizens of Burlington. When opportunities have arisen to attract new air service, J.J. has been careful to make sure that it is sustainable and that the airport grows appropriately to meet the new demand. And when the airport has sought to expand its business offerings, he has worked cooperatively with the neighbors, the National Guard, and the businesses that are based at the airport or that rely on the airport to outline the significance of the development.

I am proud to have worked with J.J. and others to bring the innovative, low-cost air service to Burlington that has fueled record passenger growth at the airport. From JetBlue and Independence Air to the parking expansions to the new gates, J.J. has diligently moved forward not just to compete with the Albanys and Manchesters of the world for passengers, but to make Burlington a destination unto itself.

I ask unanimous consent that a May 11, 2005, Burlington Free Press editorial on J.J.'s accomplishments in Burlington be included at this point in the Record.

There being no objection,the material was ordered to be printed in

Again, Mr. President, I want to thank J.J. for his many years

of dedicated service to the City of Burlington and its airport. Marcelle and I wish him and Janet all the best in retirement.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Specter, in submitting this bipartisan resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign, which is managed by the National Crime Prevention Council. I applaud all individuals and organizations involved in the Campaign for their efforts to advance the principles and practice of effective crime prevention throughout the United States.

We have all been urged over the years by McGruff the Crime Dog, the Campaign's icon, to ``Take A Bite Out Of Crime'' a simple and effective slogan to help begin to educate and make the public aware of the importance of crime prevention. Through their leadership, the Campaign and McGruff have played vital roles in reducing crime and making our communities safer.

The Campaign was the first public education program on crime prevention in the country. It is designed to stimulate community involvement, generate confidence in comprehensive crime prevention activities and provide a national focus and resource for crime prevention programs nationwide. When it was formally launched in 1979, most Americans viewed crime as inevitable and its prevention as the job of the police. Today, three out of four Americans believe that they can personally take actions to reduce crime and that their neighborhoods and communities can act to prevent crime. A major force behind this shift to a more positive attitude is the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign.

Crime prevention is central to maintaining a sound criminal justice system at the national, State, and local levels, and to ensuring safer and more secure communities. Making prevention a priority through the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign is a collective effort. This alliance of national, State and Federal organizations works with businesses, civic groups, individuals and law enforcement to generate crime prevention awareness and action throughout the country through a variety of mechanisms.

The National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign has inspired and directed millions of citizens to take action, individually and collectively, to reduce crime, drug abuse and the fear of crime. I look forward to another 25 years and beyond of McGruff and the Campaign, under the skilled leadership of its President and CEO, Al Lenhardt, who is the former Sergeant At Arms of the U.S. Senate, continuing to be national leaders in improving the quality of life in every community through crime prevention. I have no doubt that together they will continue to promote individual and collective action, in collaboration with law enforcement and other supporting agencies, to reduce crime and build safer communities throughout the United States.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind words. I do rise in support of the Graham-Clinton-DeWine-Leahy amendment.

We have said it makes all members of the National Guard and Reserve eligible to participate in the military's TRICARE program on a cost- share basis. Basically, we are saying if the Guard and Reserve is out there doing the work of the regular Army--and they are, as we all know, increasingly, all the time--then they should have some of the same benefits, especially medical benefits.

Our amendment goes to the readiness of our Reserve Forces. It is certainly an important recruiting tool.

Few issues we are going to debate during consideration of this bill-- when we talked about readiness--could be as important as this issue. The National Guard is making a spectacular contribution to the Nation's defense. Everybody would acknowledge that it would be impossible to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without the National Guard. Our military reserves are carrying out all kinds of tasks, from combat support to aerial convoy escort missions. When I talk with the commanders in the field they tell me they don't know which ones are the Guard, which ones are the regular forces. They are all doing the same thing.

One difference is the National Guard has to also continue to provide a ready force in case of natural disasters or another attack here at home. In the war on terrorism, the National Guard and Reserve are a 21st century fighting force. But they are doing it with the last century's health insurance. We want to bring it up to date. We want to make sure that those who are fighting our wars, those who are defending our Nation, are treated alike. That is all it is. We just want to make sure they are treated the same.

Many members of our Guard and Reserve did not have access to affordable health insurance when they were on civilian status, and then in a moment's notice they may be called to answer the time-honored call to duty. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, reported in 2002 that at least 20 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve did not have health insurance--20 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve did not have health insurance. That means that there are members of the Guard and Reserve who potentially are not as healthy as we want them to be when we ask them to deploy.

Last year, we enacted a partial version of this amendment. It became known as the TRICARE Reserve Select Program. The program ties eligibility for gaining access to TRICARE--on a cost-share basis--to service on active duty in a contingency. That was a step forward. TRICARE was an important step forward, but it doesn't address the health insurance needs before deployment. It doesn't address the broader question of readiness of the force.

This amendment opens eligibility to any member of the Select Reserve. As long as a reservist stands ready for deployment, he or she will be able to participate in the program. It offers real, practical, meaningful health to citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It also is going to provide a meaningful recruitment incentive for the Guard and Reserve. As we all know, they are struggling to meet recruiting goals.

I am honored to be the cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus. As cochair, I believe that few defense personnel reforms are as needed, as demonstrably needed and overdue as this health insurance initiative for Guard and Reserve. It has been a high priority of each of the members of our bipartisan coalition. Republicans and Democrats alike agree the Guard and Reserve deserve to have available health insurance the same as all others.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time allotted to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, the GAO study commission exposed and confirmed these glaring deficiencies. In this GAO study, I said it appears to me we are sending our Guard and Reserve out to fight alongside our regular forces, but they are doing it without the health insurance protection our regular forces have. Well, the GAO study said exactly what I thought was happening was happening. So it has been heartening to work with my fellow Senators in remedying these problems. I will continue to press forward until a full TRICARE program for the Guard and Reserve is in place.

I will close with this. We are going to ask our Guard and Reserve to do the same duties, face the same dangers, stand in harm's way in the same way as our regular forces, and they ought to be treated the same when it comes to medical care. It is a matter of readiness, it is a matter of honesty, but most importantly it is a matter of simple justice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how much time would the Senator be seeking? The only reason I ask is we are having a major hearing in Judiciary right now and we are trying to work it out based on the time that had been allotted.

Mr. President, I am worried about that hearing. Let's do this. I want to accommodate my colleague. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to continue for 5 minutes, but that the time not come from the time reserved for the Democratic side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in light of the additional 5 minutes on the other side, 5 minutes also be added to the time on this side.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, capping days of public speculation that maybe the President would appoint Judge Edith Clement or Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez or any number of other people, the President made a dramatic evening announcement of his intention to nominate Judge John Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The President called Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Specter, and myself last night before this announcement to discuss it. I appreciated his call and the reasons he gave for the nomination. As I said to him last night, he has done his part of the equation, a very important part as President. He nominates the Justice. It is interesting that, in a nation of 280 million Americans, only 101 of us get a chance to actually have a say in who is going to serve on the Supreme Court, a person who is there to protect the rights of all Americans on the one body that is to be the ultimate check and balance in our Government. Of the 101, first, of course, is the President making the nomination. But then the 100 men and women in the Senate have an awesome responsibility to the rest of the Nation in how we vote. That is our job. The Senate has to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duty to ensure those who receive lifetime appointments to our highest Court will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans-- not those of just one political party or the other but of all Americans--that they will uphold our Constitution and our laws and that they will be impartial in their judicial approach.

As I said, the President has announced his choice. Now we in the Senate have to rise to the challenge and get to work. To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people expect and deserve. That is going to take time. It will take the cooperation of the nominee and the administration. It will require Republicans, as well as Democrats, to take seriously our constitutional obligations on behalf of all the American people, not just a select few. I will say similar things to Judge Roberts when I meet with him later today.

Justice O'Connor serves as a model Justice. She is widely respected by America as a jurist with common sense and practical values who brought no agenda from the far left or the far right. She did not prejudge cases. She cast the critical deciding vote in a number of significant cases. Her legacy of fairness is one that all Americans should want to see preserved. For 24 years on the Supreme Court, she has tried to decide cases fairly and with an open mind. I thank her for her service to the country and her graciousness in agreeing to serve until her successor is considered and confirmed by the Senate and appointed by the President.

I regret that some on the extreme right have been so critical of her and so adamantly opposed to a successor who shares her judicial philosophy and qualities. Their criticism reflects their own narrowmindedness and biased agenda. I regret that they have taken out ads and gone on the news trying to tarnish her record. Frankly, the American people know better, and nothing will tarnish the record of the first woman Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have noted that our neighbor to the north, Canada, a country that is only an hour's drive from my home in

Vermont, also has a supreme court with nine members, but four of them are women, including the Canadian chief justice. I look forward to the time when the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court is more reflective of America as Canada's supreme court is more reflective of that country.

I know Hispanics across the country are disappointed the President has missed this extraordinary historic opportunity to pick a candidate who will make the Court more diverse. I hope he will consider that in future nominations.

There was no dearth of highly qualified individuals who could have served as unifying nominees while adding to the diversity of the Supreme Court. Reports last week mentioned Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit and Judge Edward Prado of the Fifth Circuit. Certainly these are the kind of candidates worthy of consideration.

Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal court by President George H.W. Bush, the President's father. Judge Prado was first appointed by President Reagan and elevated to the circuit by the current President Bush. They are among the people who should be considered. There are many outstanding Hispanic judges and African- American judges who could have added to the diversity of the Supreme Court and made it more representative of all Americans.

Last week, Chairman Specter and I spoke about our interests in having the President consider nominees from outside what I call the ``judicial monastery.'' I believe their life experience is important and that the Supreme Court could have benefited from someone with experiences that were not limited to those of a circuit judge. Certainly, this is a consideration the President should make if he has further nominees. I wish he had done so with this nomination.

So now, however, the nomination has been made. The President has spent several weeks in determining who he wants. He has made his selection. Now it is the Senate's turn to decide what we will do. Above all, we in the Senate need to ensure that the Supreme Court remains protective of all Americans' rights and liberties from government intrusion and that the Supreme Court understands the role of Congress in passing legislation to protect ordinary Americans from abuse by powerful special interests.

No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, whether nominated by a Democrat or by a Republican. And there are far different considerations for the Supreme Court than there are for circuit courts. How the nominee views precedent, what the nominee regards as settled law, how the nominee will exercise the incredible power of a Supreme Court Justice to be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution--all of these raise very different considerations than those for a lower court nominee. In addition, a nominee coming from the appellate bench will have a record there in votes and opinions and performance that will provide important additional insights into his likely tenure as a Supreme Court Justice.

We have to take the time to evaluate this nominee for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. After all, if confirmed, Judge Roberts could be expected to serve to the year 2030 or 2040. So we have to have time to perform due diligence on Judge Roberts' record and judicial philosophy. The Senators on the committee have to have time to prepare for fair and thorough hearings. I ask all Senators to be mindful of the Senate's fundamental role in this process. The Americans put us all here to do an important job, and it is critical that we treat that responsibility with the seriousness and respect it deserves.

I start, as I always have, from the premise that the Supreme Court should not be a wing of the Republican Party or a wing of the Democratic Party. It has that responsibility not only to all 280 million Americans but also to millions and millions of future Americans. The independence of the Federal judiciary is critical to our American concept of justice for all. The Supreme Court provides a fundamental check in our system of government. We have to ensure that it serves as a bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power by the executive branch. We also have to ensure that the Supreme Court respects the role of Congress when it acts to protect Americans from those with great power, to improve their lives with environmental laws, and by reining in powerful special interests.

We know that the current Supreme Court is the most activist Supreme Court in my lifetime. Time and time again, they have set aside congressional laws, some of long standing, and basically written new laws of their own. There was a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle were very opposed to the idea of an activist Supreme Court. Now we find that two of the heroes of the right are the most activist members of the current Supreme Court, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia.

Ours is a nation based on the rule of law. The test of a good judge is his or her ability to apply the law fairly. As I evaluate candidates for lifetime appointments that often span not merely years but decades, I want to make sure that everybody who comes before the Court can look at that Justice and say: I can be treated fairly no matter who I am, no matter what political party I belong to, no matter what my station in life.

They are going to be there a long time. Justice O'Connor served for 24 years. Chief Justice Rehnquist has served for 34 years. Since 1970, the average term has been 25 years. So we are considering a nomination not just for the period remaining in the Bush administration, which is going to end in 2008, but for our children's and grandchildren's futures, 2030 and beyond.

This nomination fills the seat that Justice O'Connor occupied while serving as the ``swing'' or decisive vote in so many cases, and if her successor does not share her judicial philosophy, that replacement could radically change the Court in the way our Constitution is interpreted.

It is critical we not prejudge a nominee and that the Judiciary Committee be accorded the time to develop a full record on which Senators can base an informed judgment. I was disappointed to hear somebody say last night: Why can't we move immediately to the hearings? Come on, the American people would justly feel on something such as this that their rights have been shortchanged.

I look forward to working out agreements with Chairman Specter on procedures to allow the kind of thorough consideration that a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court deserves, and I know Chairman Specter feels the same way.

A preliminary review of Judge Roberts' record suggests areas of significant concern that need exploration. We have to consider his service on the circuit court, even though that is quite limited. We need to understand how he will exercise judicial power.

An independent study--and I referred to this earlier--demonstrated that the Rehnquist Court has been the most activist Court in my lifetime in overturning congressional enactments and restricting legislative authority--actually the most activist since before the New Deal. The most activist members, of course, as I said earlier, are Judge Thomas and Judge Scalia. We need to know what kind of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts would be.

When I talked with the President, I said I hoped that they would cooperate so that all relevant matters can be constructively explored as we begin this important process. When I meet with Judge Roberts today, I will ask for his cooperation. After all, the Constitution speaks of advise and consent. It does not speak about nominate and rubberstamp. That, incidentally, is a position I have taken whether it has been a Democrat or a Republican on the Supreme Court.

I look forward to hearings that will inform the Senate and the American people in making the Senate's confirmation decision. I have been here for hearings and to vote on all nine members of the Supreme Court and for one other who did not make it. Presidents come and go. Senators come and go. The Supreme Court Justices tend to be there a lot longer than all of us. I want to make sure we do our job the right way.

Mr. President, I know there are other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who wish to speak. In fact, I see the member of the committee who has either presided over or been present for

more Supreme Court nominations than any Member now serving in the Senate. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I am just wondering if perhaps the Senator from Kentucky, who has dual responsibilities as chairman of this subcommittee and as the Republican whip--maybe we should talk in our respective cloakrooms--we have a number of people we know who want to offer amendments--that we get perhaps a unanimous consent agreement, and the time we can work out, sequencing each of those amendments. I don't know about time at the moment. I am trying to think of some way-- we have been on this bill since Friday. A lot of us have other matters to attend to, including meetings with the President's nominee to the Supreme Court. Senator McConnell and I have sat here through hours of quorum calls. I think it is time to fish or cut bait. I say this to our cloakrooms, this may soon turn into a unanimous consent agreement and will require each of these amendments to come up and either be voted on or withdrawn.

I don't know how else we get it done. We have been several hours in quorum calls so far, and some of us have other things to do. I have no problem with somebody getting a vote. Vote for it or against it, but let's get it done.

Mr. President, I certainly want to extradict or bring back to America people who have committed crimes here. But I understand and I agree with the Bush administration, which is strongly opposed to this amendment. The administration letter says, in part, for example, Israel, in some cases, has refused to extradict its nationals. Jordan, with whom we have a treaty, has a court ruling that the treaty is not in force. The amendment does not take into account that the Government does not have treaties in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere.

Under this amendment, for example, a few years ago when a young man committed a heinous murder in Maryland--he had dual citizenship with Israel and fled to Israel--Israel would not send him back; in that case, we would have had to cut off all aid to Israel.

That may be what Senators want to do. I point that out. That is why the administration so strongly opposes the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1255, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1305

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1301

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1252, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1306 through 1308, En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Romania

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from the State of New Jersey, the Senators from the State of North Carolina, and the Senator from Nebraska. This program sounds important. Unfortunately, the subcommittee does not earmark funds for specific organizations.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey, North Carolina, and Nebraska, and I thank them for bringing this project to my attention. This sounds like a worthwhile project for USAID to consider.

Rwanda HIV/AIDS Program

Mr. President, I would concur completely with the Senator from Kentucky on the people he has praised. He has left out one, himself. I praise the work he has done. We worked very closely together on this. I know that Tim Rieser on my side worked so closely with Paul Grove, and I appreciate the bipartisan nature of that. I thank Kate Eltrich; the newest member on our side, Jennifer Park; of course, Paul Grove, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, and LaShawnda Smith on the chairman's side. It has been very good. I think we could probably go on to final passage.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kentucky for trying to move this bill along. I have been trying to do the same on my side. I am hoping we can.

In fairness, if people actually have amendments, they should bring them forward. We have had several hours of quorum calls today. It would not seem to make a great deal of sense that we be here at midnight tonight finishing the bill. I join with the Senator from Kentucky. We could easily have had it finished by now. I will make one last call on our Members, but I am very eager to go to third reading.

I see other Senators seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not--I discussed this with the Senator from Kentucky before--I will make two additions, one to add 5 minutes for the Senator from Vermont, which I do not expect to be using but just because of the way it is broken down, just to make sure that I have time; and secondly, this debate not start until such time as the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from New York who are on the floor, each waiting to speak briefly, make their statements before we begin the Coburn-Boxer amendment. With those provisos, the additional 5 minutes for myself, plus the time for the three of them, I have no objection.

They are asking, as I understand it, for 10 minutes.

I make that as part of the agreement.

That is right.

Mr. President, I would be willing to yield back my time, if the others are, to accommodate the chairman of the subcommittee.

Once they have finished their time, I will ask unanimous consent that my time be yielded back.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, should we not have 2 minutes between each vote evenly divided between the sides in the usual form to discuss the next vote?

I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Then, as the Senator from Kentucky said earlier, I think it is pretty clear we on our side do not have any amendments beyond the unanimous-consent agreement that would require rollcall votes. I know of nobody on this side, nor am I, requesting a rollcall vote on final passage, insofar as we are going to have to have a rollcall vote when the conference report comes back, in any event.

Amendment No. 1241

I have spent almost 30 years on this committee, cutting out areas where I believed we spent tax dollars frivolously. This, however, is talking about $5,000 overall throughout AID regarding hospitality for visiting dignitaries. I have had disagreements with various Directors of AID over the years on particular programs, but I am not going to come on the Senate floor and seek to micromanage AID to the extent that if they have visiting dignitaries and they are trying to move through a program, they would be unable to even have recorded music for that or pay a modest honorarium to a local singer or something like that to come in and entertain, much the same way other countries do with us. We are talking about for the whole world--$5,000 in a multimillion dollar budget.

Frankly, I will give the Bush administration--as I have since I have been in the Senate the Ford administration, the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the Bush administration--the benefit of the doubt that out of this multibillion dollar budget, they can handle this $5,000.

I will vote against the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 1242

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry: Is it the intent of the distinguished Republican leader to request subsequent votes after this first one be 10-minute votes?

Mr. President, I have had questions about what six different administrations have done, since I have been in the Senate, in their operation of USAID, but I have never seen such micromanagement. This would could cost far more than it would save. It would actually cost far more money than this amount in debating it. It would not have been done in the Ford administration, the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, the former Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and I would not support this kind of micromanagement in the current Bush administration. We would simply spend more money debating it than we could save, and I hope we would vote against it.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said earlier, we are on the Foreign Operations, State Department bill. We have virtually completed our work. There is a pending amendment. We are going to be ready very soon to go to third reading.

We have had a number of Members say they might have an amendment, and I am delighted to hear that, but if they ``might,'' they might want to do it while the bill is still on the floor because it is going to be gone.

Some of these amendments are very well thought out. Some Members have their press releases already written. But if Members want the press release released--as well as the well-thought-out amendment--one might want to do it while the bill is on the floor.

I have no desire to hold up this piece of legislation. Senator McConnell has no desire to hold up this legislation. We spent several hours of quorum calls Friday and today. If Members are serious about an amendment, bring it to the floor. Otherwise, from this Senator's point of view, as soon as there is not an amendment pending, I will have no objection to moving to third reading.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am advised these amendments are cleared by all the parties with interest on this side of the aisle.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I totally concur with the senior Senator from Kentucky. Friday, both he and I were here in a rather lonely Chamber, I might say. We would have been happy to have gone to third reading on Friday. We were advised Members on both sides of the aisle had matters to come before this committee. Of course, extending the normal courtesy managers do on such bills, we did not go to third reading so we could accommodate those Members. We are fast approaching that time. Frankly, if we reach a time tomorrow where we are ready to wrap up this bill, I will join with the Senator from Kentucky in doing that.

I note to all Members that the bill is different than it has been in past years. We have both the operations of the State Department as well as what we normally consider the foreign aid bill. There are a number of items in the bill strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans and a number of items sought by the President as part of his efforts in foreign policy.

We have crafted what, by anybody's measure, has to be considered a bipartisan piece of legislation, one that should get overwhelming support by this body. We have taken into consideration those items the White House needs in the normal conduct of foreign affairs, as well as those items the State Department needs in their normal operations. But we still have to pass the bill. The bill, if it was brought to a vote right now, would pass overwhelmingly. But it still has to pass.

I have never served as either leader of the Senate, but I sympathize with them. The leaders of this Senate--majority leaders Senator Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, as well as their counterparts--Senator Scott, Senator Griffin, and some of the same Senators I mentioned served as both minority and majority leaders, and Senator Reid. It is not an easy job to schedule the Senate. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is the deputy Republican leader. He knows that. We are trying to accommodate him. We have done everything Senator Frist or Senator Reid have asked us to do in moving this bill forward. With a little cooperation from everybody else, we can wrap up this bill and get on to other matters because we still have to go to conference, which I would like to get to very quickly so we can get a final package before the Senate.

I say that hoping someone will hear and know what the heck we are talking about, other than Supreme Court Justices. We really do want to get this bill wrapped up. Please do because once we reach a point with the amendments, we

are going to vote them up or down and finish the bill. I yield the floor.