Floor Statements

Madam President, today I am introducing the Seniors Safety Act of 2003, a bill to protect older Americans from crime. I am pleased to have Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Feingold, and Bingaman as cosponsors for this anti-crime bill.

The Seniors Safety Act is a comprehensive bill that addresses the most prevalent crimes perpetrated against seniors, including health care fraud, nursing home abuse, telemarketing fraud--and bribery, graft and fraud in pension and employee benefit plans. In addition, this legislation would help seniors obtain restitution if their pension plans are defrauded.

Older Americans are the most rapidly growing population group in our society, making them an even more attractive target for criminals. The Department of Health and Human Services has predicted that the number of older Americans will grow from 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 20 percent by 2030. In Vermont, seniors comprise about 12 percent of the population, a number that is expected to increase to 20 percent by 2025.

Crime against seniors has remained stubbornly resistant over the last decade. According to a 2000 Justice Department study, more than 90 percent of crimes committed against older Americans were property crimes, with theft the most common. As our Nation addressed our violent crime problem, we did not take a comprehensive approach to deterring the crimes that so affect the elderly, like telemarketing fraud, health care fraud, and pension fraud. The Seniors Safety Act provides such a comprehensive approach, and I urge the Senate to pass it.

The Seniors Safety Act instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review current sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, amend the guidelines to include the age of a crime victim as a criteria for determining whether a sentencing enhancement is proper. The bill also requires the Commission to review sentencing guidelines for health care benefit fraud, increases statutory penalties both for fraud resulting in serious injury or death and for bribery

and graft in connection with employee benefit plans, and increases criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans.

Telemarketing fraud is one crime that disproportionately harms Americans over age 50. The Seniors Safety Act seeks to fight the perpetrators of fraud--schemes that often succeed in swindling seniors of their life savings. Some of these schemes are directed from outside the United States, making criminal prosecution more difficult.

The Act would provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized.

The bill also establishes a ``Better Business Bureau''-style clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission to provide seniors, their families, and others who may be concerned about a telemarketer with information about prior law enforcement actions against the particular company. In addition, the FTC would refer seniors and other consumers who believe they have been swindled to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Criminal activity that undermines the safety and integrity of pension plans and health benefit programs threatens all Americans, but most especially those seniors who have relied on promised benefits in planning their retirements. Seniors who have worked faithfully and honestly for years should not reach their retirement years only to find that the funds they relied upon were stolen.

The Seniors Safety Act would add to the arsenal that federal prosecutors can draw upon to prevent and punish fraud against retirement plans. Specifically, the Act would create new criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans or obtaining money or property from such plans by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. In addition, the Act would enhance penalties for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans. The only people enjoying the benefits of pension plans should be the people who have worked hard to fund those plans, not crooks who get the money by fraud.

Health care spending consists of about 15 percent of the gross national product, or more than $1 trillion each year. Estimated losses due to fraud and abuse are astronomical. A December 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice, NIJ, states that these losses ``may exceed 10 percent of annual health care spending, or $100 billion per year.''

As more health care claims are processed electronically, more sophisticated computer-generated fraud schemes are surfacing. Some of these schemes generate thousands of false claims designed to pass through automated claims processing to payment, and result in the theft of millions of dollars from federal and private health care programs. Fraud against Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans increases the financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. In addition, some forms of fraud may result in inadequate medical care, harming patients' health as well. Unfortunately, the NIJ reports that many health care fraud schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to complain or alert law enforcement.''

We saw a dramatic increase in criminal convictions for health care fraud cases during the 1990s. These cases included convictions for submitting false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans; fraudulent billings by foreign doctors; and needless prescriptions for durable medical equipment by doctors in exchange for kickbacks from manufacturers.

We can and must do more. The Seniors Safety Act would allow the Attorney General to bring injunctive actions to stop false claims and illegal kickback schemes involving federal health care programs. The bill would also provide law enforcement authorities with additional investigatory tools to uncover, investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and civil proceedings.

In addition, whistle-blowers who tip off law enforcement officers about health care fraud would be authorized under the Seniors Safety Act to seek court permission to review information obtained by the government to enhance their assistance in False Claims Act lawsuits. Such qui tam, or whistle-blower, suits have dramatically enhanced the government's ability to uncover health care fraud. The Act would allow whistle-blowers and their qui tam suits to become even more effective.

Finally, the Act would extend anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. These are all important steps that will help cut down on the enormous health care fraud losses.

As life expectancies continue to increase, long-term care planning specialists estimate that over 40 percent of those turning 65 eventually will need nursing home care, and that 20 percent of those seniors will spend five years or more in homes. Indeed, many of us already have experienced having our parents, family members or other loved ones spend time in a nursing home. We owe it to them and to ourselves to give the residents of nursing homes the best and safest care they can get.

The Justice Department has cited egregious examples of nursing homes that pocketed Medicare funds instead of providing residents with adequate care. In one case, five patients died as a result of the inadequate provision of nutrition, wound care and diabetes management by three Pennsylvania nursing homes. Yet another death occurred when a patient, who was unable to speak, was placed in a scalding tub of 138- degree water.

This Act provides additional peace of mind to nursing home residents and their families by providing federal law enforcement with the authority to investigate and prosecute operators of nursing homes for willfully engaging in patterns of health and safety violations in the care of nursing home residents. The Act also protects whistle-blowers from retaliation for reporting such violations.

This title of the Seniors Safety Act would authorize the Attorney General to use forfeited funds to pay restitution to victims of fraudulent activity, and authorize the courts to require the forfeiture of proceeds from retirement-related offenses. In addition, it would exempt false claims actions from being stayed in bankruptcy proceedings and ensure that debts due to the United States from false claims actions are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

We all deserve to age with dignity and free of the threat of abuse or fraud. No one can guarantee that this will happen, but the Senior Safety Act can be a powerful new tool to help crack down on those who prey upon older Americans. This effort is about all of us and our families.

These are problems that have persisted too long. It is past the time for the Senate to act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Protection of Our Cultural Heritage Act. This legislation was reported last year by the Energy Committee, and I hope that this year it will become law. The bill would increase the maximum penalties for violations of three existing statutes that protect the cultural and archaeological history of the American people, particularly Native Americans. The United States Sentencing Commission asked Congress last year to make these statutory changes, which would complement the Commission's strengthening of Federal sentencing

guidelines to ensure more stringent penalties for criminals who steal from our public lands. Senator Inouye joins me as a cosponsor.

This bill will increase the maximum penalties for the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, ARPA, 16 USC Sec. 470ee, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, 18 USC Sec. 1170, and for 18 USC Sec. 1163, which prohibits theft from Indian Tribal Organizations. All three statutes currently impose a 5-year maximum sentence, and each includes a lower maximum for a first offense of the statute and/or a violation of the statute involving property of less than a specified value. This bill would create a 10-year maximum sentence for each statute. In response to comments from the administration last year, the bill retains misdemeanor offenses for relatively minor offenses.

The increased maximum sentences would be consistent with similar Federal statutes. For example, the 1994 law proscribing museum theft carries a 10-year maximum sentence, as do the general statutes punishing theft and the destruction of Government property. Moreover, increasing the maximum sentences will give judges and the Sentencing Commission greater discretion to impose punishments appropriate to the amount of destruction a defendant has done.

Making these changes will also enable the Sentencing Commission's 2002 sentencing guidelines to be fully implemented. The Commission has increased sentencing guidelines for cultural heritage crimes, but the statutory maximum penalties contained in current law will prevent judges from issuing sentences in the upper range of the new guidelines. The 2002 guidelines had the enthusiastic support of the Justice and Interior Departments, the Society for American Archeology, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, numerous Native American nations, and many others. Congress should take the steps necessary to see the guidelines take full effect.

Two of the three laws this bill amends protect Native American lands and property. The third, ARPA, protects both public and Indian lands, and provides significant protection to my State of Vermont. For example, ARPA can be used to prosecute those who would steal artifacts from the wrecked military vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain that date to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. U.S. Attorneys can also use ARPA to prosecute criminals who take items that are at least 100 years old from a protected site on Vermont state property without a permit, and then transport those goods into another state. In addition, ARPA protects artifacts found on the approximately 5 percent of Vermont land that is Federal property, land that includes many ``ghost towns'' that have long been abandoned but are an important part of our history.

Those who would pillage the rich cultural heritage of this nation and its people are committing serious crimes. These artifacts are the legacy of all Americans and should not be degraded as garage sale commodities or as fodder for private enrichment.

I would like to thank a number of people for their help and advice about this legislation. Charlie Tetzlaff, as well as the rest of the staff at the Sentencing Commission, helped us understand the importance of this issue, and made protecting our cultural heritage a priority when he served as United States Attorney for Vermont. Art Cohn, the director of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, and Giovanna Peebles, Vermont's State Archeologist, were very helpful in explaining how our laws protect the cultural heritage of Vermont and the rest of the nation, and I am grateful for their support for this bill.

Passage of this legislation would demonstrate Congress' commitment to preserving our Nation's history and our cultural heritage. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense initiative.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Protection of Our Cultural Heritage Act. This legislation was reported last year by the Energy Committee, and I hope that this year it will become law. The bill would increase the maximum penalties for violations of three existing statutes that protect the cultural and archaeological history of the American people, particularly Native Americans. The United States Sentencing Commission asked Congress last year to make these statutory changes, which would complement the Commission's strengthening of Federal sentencing

guidelines to ensure more stringent penalties for criminals who steal from our public lands. Senator Inouye joins me as a cosponsor.

This bill will increase the maximum penalties for the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, ARPA, 16 USC Sec. 470ee, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, 18 USC Sec. 1170, and for 18 USC Sec. 1163, which prohibits theft from Indian Tribal Organizations. All three statutes currently impose a 5-year maximum sentence, and each includes a lower maximum for a first offense of the statute and/or a violation of the statute involving property of less than a specified value. This bill would create a 10-year maximum sentence for each statute. In response to comments from the administration last year, the bill retains misdemeanor offenses for relatively minor offenses.

The increased maximum sentences would be consistent with similar Federal statutes. For example, the 1994 law proscribing museum theft carries a 10-year maximum sentence, as do the general statutes punishing theft and the destruction of Government property. Moreover, increasing the maximum sentences will give judges and the Sentencing Commission greater discretion to impose punishments appropriate to the amount of destruction a defendant has done.

Making these changes will also enable the Sentencing Commission's 2002 sentencing guidelines to be fully implemented. The Commission has increased sentencing guidelines for cultural heritage crimes, but the statutory maximum penalties contained in current law will prevent judges from issuing sentences in the upper range of the new guidelines. The 2002 guidelines had the enthusiastic support of the Justice and Interior Departments, the Society for American Archeology, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, numerous Native American nations, and many others. Congress should take the steps necessary to see the guidelines take full effect.

Two of the three laws this bill amends protect Native American lands and property. The third, ARPA, protects both public and Indian lands, and provides significant protection to my State of Vermont. For example, ARPA can be used to prosecute those who would steal artifacts from the wrecked military vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain that date to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. U.S. Attorneys can also use ARPA to prosecute criminals who take items that are at least 100 years old from a protected site on Vermont state property without a permit, and then transport those goods into another state. In addition, ARPA protects artifacts found on the approximately 5 percent of Vermont land that is Federal property, land that includes many ``ghost towns'' that have long been abandoned but are an important part of our history.

Those who would pillage the rich cultural heritage of this nation and its people are committing serious crimes. These artifacts are the legacy of all Americans and should not be degraded as garage sale commodities or as fodder for private enrichment.

I would like to thank a number of people for their help and advice about this legislation. Charlie Tetzlaff, as well as the rest of the staff at the Sentencing Commission, helped us understand the importance of this issue, and made protecting our cultural heritage a priority when he served as United States Attorney for Vermont. Art Cohn, the director of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, and Giovanna Peebles, Vermont's State Archeologist, were very helpful in explaining how our laws protect the cultural heritage of Vermont and the rest of the nation, and I am grateful for their support for this bill.

Passage of this legislation would demonstrate Congress' commitment to preserving our Nation's history and our cultural heritage. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense initiative.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, we confirm R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. The Antitrust Division is charged with a critically important role in protecting our nation's consumers and their markets, and I look forward to Mr. Pate fulfilling that role with diligence and distinction.

As the boundaries of our marketplaces are expanding ever outward, many of the competitive issues that were once only local have become regional, national, or even global in their impact. That global economy is also increasingly dominated by high tech and information industries. In those arenas, technological change and innovation are taking place at dizzying speed, and we are seeing new and creative products and services developed every day. Fair and efficient policing of corporate behavior in those swiftly evolving markets is particularly important to ensure that the early entrants do not preclude competition from later rivals, and that a rapid accumulation of market power cannot be used to harm consumers.

Another hallmark of antitrust problems arising in recent years has been the increasing number of situations in which suppliers and distributors join forces, possibly to the detriment of consumers. Many of us are accustomed to thinking of antitrust enforcement as focused on mergers of competitors, but as more and more vertical arrangements are entered into, we must be aware--and be wary--of such deals. While in some cases they may permit consumers a greater range of choice than they would otherwise enjoy, they can also facilitate grievously anticompetitive behavior. As we all move more and more of our acquisition of information, of goods, and of services, to the Internet, the online businesses and markets will need the scrutiny of the Antitrust Division to help guarantee that those marketplaces provide digital-age consumers with the quality and quantity of offerings that have long been the promise of the Internet.

As Mr. Pate confronts these issues, with the help of the many seasoned career lawyers and economists in the Antitrust Division, I am confident that he will be able to protect and promote the competitive health of the American economy. We all stand to benefit if he does his job well. I stand by ready to help him ensure that consumers and producers alike enjoy the benefits of a properly functioning marketplace.

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm John A. Woodcock, Jr. to a lifetime appointment on the United States District Court for the District of Maine. With this confirmation we will have helped fill the sole vacancy on that court. That vacancy, which arose early this year when Judge Carter took senior status, is important to the people of Maine and New England. I have been glad to work with the Senators from Maine to expedite the confirmation of this nominee and provide bipartisan support. I congratulate the nominee and his family.

The Senate has now confirmed 132 judges nominated by President Bush, including 26 circuit court judges. One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed when Democrats acted as the Senate majority for 17 months from the summer of 2001 to adjournment last year. After today, 32 will have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 132 judges confirmed for President Bush is more confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of 1995, 1996 and 1997-- the first 3 years they controlled the Senate process for President Clinton. In those 3 full years, the Republican leadership in the Senate allowed only 111 judicial nominees to be confirmed, which included only 18 circuit judges. We have already exceeded that total by 19 percent and the circuit court total by 40 percent with 6 months remaining to us this year. In truth, we have achieved all this in less than 2 years because of the delays in organizing and reorganizing the Senate in 2001. The Judiciary Committee was not even reassigned until July 10, 2001, so we have now confirmed 132 judges in less than 2 years.

In the first half of this year, the 32 confirmations is more than Republicans allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session, when only 17 district court judges were added to the Federal courts across the nation. In the first half of this year, with 9 circuit court confirmations, we have already exceeded the average of 7 per year achieved by Republican leadership from 1995 through the early part of 2001. That is more circuit court confirmations in 6 months than Republicans allowed confirmed in the entire 1996 session, in which there were none confirmed; in all of 1997, when there were 7 confirmed; in all of 1999, when there were 7 confirmed; or in all of 2000, when there were 8 confirmed. The Senate has now achieved more in fewer than 6 full months for President Bush than Republicans used to allow the Senate to achieve in 4 of the 6 full years they were in control of the Senate when President Clinton was making judicial nominations. We are moving two to three times faster for this President's nominees, despite the fact that the current appellate court nominees are more controversial, divisive and less widely-supported than President Clinton's appellate court nominees were.

If the Senate did not confirm another judicial nominee all year and simply adjourned today, we would have treated President Bush more fairly and would have acted on more of his judicial nominees than Republicans did for President Clinton in 1995-97 or the period 1996-99. In addition, the vacancies on the Federal courts around the country are significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end of 1997 or the 110 vacancies that Democrats inherited in the summer of 2001. We continue well below the 67 vacancy level that Senator Hatch used to call ``full employment'' for the Federal judiciary. Indeed we have reduced vacancies to their lowest level in the last 13 years. So while unemployment has continued to climb for Americans to 6.1 percent last month, the Senate has helped lower the vacancy rate in Federal courts to an historically low level that we have not witnessed in over a decade. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and the Judiciary Committee continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial nominees at between two and four times as many as it did for President Clinton's.

For those who are claiming that Democrats are blockading this President's judicial nominees, this is another example of how quickly and easily the Senate can act when we proceed cooperatively with consensus nominees. The Senate's record fairly considered has been outstanding--especially when contrasted with the obstruction of President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees by Republicans between 1996 and 2001.

Mr. President, although our attention today is focused on the persistent attacks against U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and the escalation of the bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, it is imperative that we not ignore the challenges we continue to face in Afghanistan.

In southeast Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers continue to battle with the remnants of al-Qaida and the Taliban, whose fighters have managed to regroup across the border inside Pakistan. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid, the national impact has been difficult for many Afghans to see. Afghanistan is such a large, inaccessible, impoverished country that it will take many billions of dollars over many years to recover from decades of war, and that will be possible only if adequate security exists to implement these programs. Security will remain elusive as long as political and economic power outside of Kabul continues to be wielded by regional warlords.

An article by Carlotta Gall in yesterday's New York Times provides a sobering description of the continuing challenges in Afghanistan. I hope officials at USAID, the State Department, the Defense Department, and OMB took the time to read it. As with so many aid programs, we often focus on the trees and lose sight of the forest. We can point to lots of small success stories--new well dug here, a bridge repaired there, more girls enrolled in school. But when you step back the picture looks very different, as Ms. Gall's article shows.

We and our Allies have major stakes in Afghanistan's future, and I am confident that we will remain engaged. But let's do the job that needs to be done, not half measures. Without a more effective strategy to enhance security, strengthen the central government and support civil society, we will fall far short of our goals.

I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Gall's June 11, 2003, article in the New York Times entitled ``In Warlord Land, Democracy Tries Baby Steps'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see that the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, is on the floor. Knowing of his longstanding interest in Sierra Leone, I wonder if he wants to speak briefly about the indictment last week of Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire. I spoke about this subject last week. Since then, it has come to my attention that some officials in the State Department and other governments are upset at Mr. Crane for the timing of this indictment, as they saw it as disruptive to the peace talks in West Africa.

While I can appreciate those concerns, I agree with one of Mr. Crane's statements on this issue, which I will read:

[T]he timing of this announcement was carefully considered in

light of the important peace process begun this week. To

ensure the legitimacy of these negotiations, it is imperative

that the attendees know they are dealing with an indicted war

criminal. These negotiations can still move forward, but they

must do so without the involvement of this indictee. The

evidence upon which this indictment was approved raises

serious questions about Taylor's suitability to be a

guarantor of any deal, let alone a peace agreement.

I was wondering if Senator Gregg had any thoughts on this issue.

I share Senator Gregg's sentiments. I would also point out that Mr. Crane's office unsealed the indictment in a responsible way. According to information I received, the Special Court's chief of security was instructed to inform all organizations with personnel in Liberia, including the U.S. Embassy, Freetown, that ``within 24 hours the Special Court was going to take an action that could possibly destabilize Monrovia.'' These actions were undertaken to ensure that all government and humanitarian personnel had notice to withdraw or stay home.

This effectively ``unsealed'' the indictment to governments and humanitarian organizations without tipping Mr. Taylor off. In addition, 3 hours before the press conference and public announcement, and minutes after the Court had confirmation that Ghanaian authorities were served with the arrest

warrant for Mr. Taylor, private letters were hand-delivered to all representatives of a number of key governments in Freetown.

Yes. In fact, I am going to work with Senator McConnell, with the goal of providing $2 million in the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill for additional support to the Court.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. In closing, I would just add that there have been recent reports of a possible ``deal'' with Mr. Taylor under which he would go into exile in exchange for immunity from the Court. While I want to see an end to the fighting in West Africa, which has claimed many innocent lives, an immunity deal with Mr. Taylor would be a grave mistake. It will undermine peace and reconciliation efforts in the region. It will let a major war criminal escape justice. It would be unacceptable.

Mr. President, I yield myself time.

As the two distinguished Senators from New York are in the Chamber, I will yield my time to them adding only this: This is a nominee to one of the most important courts in the country. It is actually my circuit. It is a Republican nominee, nominated by a Republican President. I predict that the nominee is going to go through easily because, contrary to the normal procedure on some of these nominees, the White House has sent up somebody who can unite us, not divide us. Usually they send nominees who divide us and not unite us. This is an example of what happens when a nominee to a powerful court is sent up who will unite us and not divide us.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains?

I thank the Chair.

Today, we vote to confirm Richard Wesley to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Federal circuit covering Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. With this confirmation we will have filled the sole vacancy on this circuit court. I remember when President Clinton had multiple nominees pending before the Senate for the five simultaneous vacancies that then existed. The entire circuit was declared a judicial emergency by the chief judge, and he had to resort to three-judge panels with only one Second Circuit judge. Republicans were not moving those nominations at that time. All of the Senators from the Second Circuit joined together to work for their confirmation, and we were finally able to confirm them all, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor, after significant efforts. This nomination did not suffer those needless delays. With the support of Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, this nomination has been considered expeditiously.

The Senate has already confirmed 129 judges, including 26 circuit court judges, nominated by President Bush. One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed when Democrats acted as the Senate majority for 17 months from the summer of 2001 to adjournment last year. After today, 29 will have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 129 judges confirmed for President Bush is more confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of 1995, 1996, and 1997--the first 3 full years of his last term. In those 3 years, the Republican leadership in the Senate allowed only 111 judicial nominees to be confirmed, which included only 18 circuit court judges. We have already exceeded that total by 15 percent and the circuit court total by 40 percent with 6 months remaining to us this year.

Today's confirmation makes the ninth court of appeals nominee confirmed by the Senate just this year. That means that in the first half of this year, we have exceeded the average of seven per year achieved by Republican leadership from 1995 through the early part of 2001. The Senate has now achieved more in fewer than 6 full months for President Bush than Republicans used to allow the Senate to achieve in a full year with President Clinton. We are moving two to three times faster for this President's nominees, despite the fact that the current appellate court nominees are more controversial, divisive, and less widely supported than President Clinton's appellate court nominees were.

If the Senate did not confirm another judicial nominee all year and simply adjourned today, we would have treated President Bush more fairly and would have acted on more of his judicial nominees than Republicans did for President Clinton in 1995-97. In addition, the vacancies on the Federal courts around the country are significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end of 1997. We continue well below the 67 vacancy level that Senator Hatch used to call ``full employment'' for the Federal judiciary.

Indeed we have reduced vacancies to their lowest level in the last 13 years. So while unemployment has continued to climb for Americans to 6.1 percent last month, the Senate has helped lower the vacancy rate in federal courts to an historically low level that we have not witnessed in over a decade. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and the Judiciary Committee continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial nominees at between two and four times as many as he did for President Clinton's.

For those who are claiming that Democrats are blockading this President's judicial nominees, this is another example of how quickly and easily the Senate can act when we proceed cooperatively with consensus nominees. The Senate's record fairly considered has been outstanding--especially when contrasted with the obstruction of President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees by Republicans between 1996 and 2001.

I hope the White House would note the strong support for this conservative Republican nominee to the Second Circuit. I know my good friends from New York are aware this is a case where the White House actually worked with them and consulted with them on a nominee. That has not been the case of other parts of this country that has brought about divisiveness.

Again I urge, and I have been urging for a little over 2 years, the White House might start a new course, one of seeking to unite and not divide our judicial nominees, to have consultation, not arbitrariness, on judicial nominees.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today, we vote to confirm J. Ronnie Greer to the United States District Court. With this confirmation we will have filled the sole vacancy on this court, one that arose in October 2002. Judge Greer will join Judge J. Daniel Breen and Judge Thomas Varlan, who we confirmed to lifetime appointments to the Western District of Tennessee and Eastern District of Tennessee, respectively, earlier in March of this year. These three confirmations build on the progress we were able to make while I chaired the Judiciary Committee during the 107th Congress. During those months we proceeded expeditiously to consider and confirm Judge Thomas Phillips to the Eastern District of Tennessee and Samuel Hardy Mays, Jr. to the Western District of Tennessee. In addition, during my tenure as chairman we broke the logjam on appointments to the United States Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit by confirming Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of Tennessee to that circuit court. She was the first Sixth Circuit confirmation in almost 5 years during which the Republican Senate majority had refused to proceed on three of President Clinton's Sixth Circuit nominees and vacancies grew to half the circuit court.

The Tennessee total during the last few years now stands at six and its Federal bench is completely filled. Working with Senator Frist, Senator Alexander, and before them my good friend Senator Thompson, we have been able to make tremendous progress during the last 2 years.

I yield such time as the senior Senator from Connecticut desires.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. This was a case where the White House worked with the Senators from the home State in an effort to unite rather than divide. I suspect this nominee will be easily confirmed.

With the confirmation of Mark R. Kravitz to the District Court, we will have filled the only vacancy on that court. I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman for their work in connection with this outstanding nomination and congratulate the nominee and his family.

The Senate has now confirmed 131 judges, including 26 circuit court judges, nominated by President Bush. One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed when Democrats acted as the Senate majority for 17 months from the summer of 2001 to adjournment last year. After today, 31 will have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 131 judges confirmed for President Bush is more confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of 1995, 1996 and 1997 the first 3 full years of his last term. In those 3 years, the Republican leadership in the Senate allowed only 111 judicial nominees to be confirmed, which included only 18 circuit court judges. We have already significantly exceeded that total with 6 months remaining to us this year.

If the Senate did not confirm another judicial nominee all year and simply adjourned today, we would have treated President Bush more fairly and would have acted on more of his judicial nominees than Republicans did for President Clinton in 1995-97. In addition, the vacancies on the federal courts around the country are significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end of 1997. We continue well below the 67 vacancy level that Senator Hatch used to call ``full employment'' for the federal judiciary.

Indeed, we have reduced vacancies to their lowest level in the last 13 years. So while unemployment has continued to climb for Americans to 6.1 percent last month, the Senate has helped lower the vacancy rate in federal courts to an historically low level that we have not witnessed in over a decade. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and the Judiciary Committee continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial nominees at between two and four times as many as he did for President Clinton's.

For those who are claiming that Democrats are blockading this President's judicial nominees, this is another example of how quickly and easily the Senate can act when we proceed cooperatively with consensus nominees. The Senate's record fairly considered has been outstanding--especially when contrasted with the obstruction of President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees by Republicans between 1996 and 2001.

Madam President, I yield back the remaining time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I strongly support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2002 that has been introduced by Senators McConnell and Feinstein. The legislation, as was said, seeks to pressure the military junta in Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi, and to help bring democracy and human rights to Burma.

Several days last week--in fact, time and time again--Senator McConnell came to the floor to speak on this issue. I want to commend my colleague, the senior Senator from Kentucky, for his steadfast leadership. I associate myself gladly with his remarks. I have also joined him as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

The message the legislation sends to the ruling junta in Burma is clear: Its behavior is outrageous. By any standard anywhere in the world, its behavior is outrageous. Aung San Suu Kyi is the rightful and democratically elected leader of Burma. It is that simple. Aung San Suu Kyi is the rightful, elected leader of Burma, and the ruling junta does not want her to take office because they know that their days of repression, corruption, torture, and murder would be over. She and her fellow opposition leaders must be immediately released.

This legislation also sends a clear signal to the administration, to ASEAN members, and to the international community that we need to turn up the heat on this illegitimate regime.

The efforts of Senators McConnell and Feinstein are already having an impact. On June 5, 2003, our State Department issued a strong statement, which reads:

The continued detention in isolation of Aung San Suu Kyi

and other members of her political party is outrageous and

unacceptable.

I agree. But we all know that U.S. actions can only go so far. Bringing democracy and human rights to Burma is going to require active pressure from Burma's neighbors in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand, Japan, and China. I hope they apply the pressure for human rights and democracy that many of them profess to support. They should disavow the failed policies of engagement.

I am pleased to see that the McConnell-Feinstein legislation attempts to trigger a process to ratchet up the regional pressure on the Burmese Government. I am glad to see that the United States has demarched every government in Southeast Asia on this issue. I agree with the Bush administration on this very much. We have to bring this kind of pressure. As Senator McConnell has pointed out, the administration could, on its own initiative, impose many of the sanctions called for in this legislation.

All of us were relieved yesterday when the U.N. envoy in Burma was finally able to see Aung San Suu Kyi. According to CNN, the U.N. envoy said that she shows no sign of injury following clashes with the pro- government group. His exact words were:

She did not have a scratch on her and was feisty as usual.

That is indeed good.

I was also glad to see the U.N. envoy calling on the members of the ASEAN to drop the organization's policy of nonintervention. He stated:

ASEAN has to break through the straitjacket and start

dealing with this issue. . . .The situation in Burma can only

be changed if regional actors take their positions to act on

it.

I agree. The international community has the responsibility to act together to pressure the SPDC. The time, if there ever was a time, for appeasement is over. It is always a time for democracy to flourish. Democracy has spoken. It is being held back by the junta in Burma. It is time for them to step aside.

I see the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky in the Chamber. I again commend him for his leadership, and I yield the floor.

Nor on this side. I am willing to yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, the new Congressional Budget Office, CBO, budget deficit numbers announced Monday should trouble us all.

Only 1 month ago CBO, estimated that the Federal deficit would be $300 billion--an alarming number considering that when President Bush took office the Federal Government was running a surplus. Now, CBO has notified Congress that the deficit will be a record $400 billion.

CBO now projects that the federal government is likely to

end fiscal year 2003 with a deficit of more than $400

billion, or close to 4 percent of gross domestic product. The

deterioration in the short-term budget outlook stems from

continued weakness in revenue collections and from enactment

of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003,

which will add an estimated $61 billion to this year's

deficit in the form of tax cuts, refundable credits, and aid

to states. The recent extension of unemployment benefits will

boost outlays by another $3 billion this year. For the first

eight months of 2003, the government ran a deficit of $291

billion, CBO estimates, about twice the shortfall it incurred

in the same period last year.

When President Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the Nation was enjoying a record budget surplus that was built with hard choices and determination over the previous 8 years. With breathtaking speed, this administration's fiscal irresponsibility has quickly turned those record surpluses into record deficits. In 3 short years, these policies have driven us further into debt, transferred a greater share of tax receipts to the pockets of the Nation's most privileged, and turned millions of hard-working Americans out of their jobs.

In fact, the Labor Department recently reported that the Nation's unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent last month, the highest level in 9 years. Since the economy began slumping in early 2001, nearly 2.5 million jobs have disappeared.

In 2001, I voted against the President's first tax plan because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and it was too fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to red ink, and the economy is still adrift.

Yet Congress passed a budget this year--including another ill-advised tax plan of $350 billion--that will only further deepen our deficits and pump up the national debt. I voted against the tax bill again this year because it is so clearly harmful to the economic health of our country, especially with the cost of the war in Iraq and the ever- increasing peacekeeping expenses.

The budget plans this administration has sent to Congress each year have been full of misguided priorities and squandered opportunities. The President's plans have severely underfunded essential health, employment training and education efforts. They have contained enormous Government giveaways to wealthy corporations and the wealthiest individuals instead of providing relief for hard-working Americans and their families. And they have been wholly inadequate to meet the domestic security needs of the first-responder agencies that we are counting on to defend against and prepare for future acts of terrorism.

The President's economic plan is not about growing the economy or creating jobs. It is a fiscally irresponsible plan that threatens to economically divide our country. Cutting taxes is a popular thing to do, and I am delighted to vote for tax cuts when they make good fiscal sense. But it is not always the right thing to do for the country and for the security and economic well-being of the American people.

The 1993 budget bill set the framework to eliminate the Federal deficit and passed by the narrowest of margins. It was a tough vote for everyone who voted for that plan and many Senators and Congressmen lost their seats in the subsequent election before the benefits of the plan could be fully realized. That momentous vote set this country on a course of surpluses, budget discipline and fiscal responsibility unmatched in American history. Unfortunately, the current administration--with its lack of fiscal responsibility--has blown all of the progress that many worked so hard to achieve. And the proof is in the latest CBO deficit figures.

Earlier this year, the President said we should not pass on our fiscal problems to future Presidents, Congresses, and generations. On that point, I agree with him. Regrettably, year after year his budgets have driven us deeper into debt, and his policies will do exactly what the President says we should avoid: They will burden our children.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an extraordinary Vermonter, Dr. Samuel B. Hand. Many people argue about what makes you a true Vermonter. Some say it is if you were born there; some say it is if you plan to die there. Until the debate is concluded, the person who could settle the matter is Dr. Hand.

While originally from Long Island, in 1961, Dr. Hand became a professor of European history at the University of Vermont, UVM. As a scholar with a passion for history, Dr. Hand quickly became one who added to Vermont's achievements and glories. He emphasized to his students the importance and the excitement of the history of Vermont, resulting in a number of his former students becoming teachers and archivists in Vermont.

Last month, the University of Vermont's Center for Research on Vermont honored Dr. Hand as the recipient of a lifetime achievement award for his expertise in Vermont history and his generous mentoring skills.

In addition to being the ``heart'' of the history department, as his colleagues called him, Dr. Hand coauthored a number of books, including ``Vermont Voices, A Documentary History of the Green Mountain State'' and ``A Vermont Encyclopedia'', and directed a National Endowment for the Humanities-funded series, ``Lake Champlain: Reflections on Our Past.'' He was also one of the founding members of the University of Vermont's Center for Research on Vermont and served as president of the Vermont Historical Society and as president of the Oral History Society. Today's editorial in the Burlington Free Press praises Dr. hand for ``extend[ing] his base beyond the walls of UVM and reinforced the important collaboration between the state's flagship university and Vermont.''

Both the University of Vermont and the State of Vermont are truly fortunate to have benefited from the dedication and intelligence of Dr. Hand. Vermonters likes him make me proud to represent such a great State. Mr. President, I would ask that this statement and the Burlington Free Press editorial be placed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I am here to remember the life of Janine Johnson--formerly with the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel--who sadly passed away last month while still in the prime of her young life of 37 years.

Janine served in the Senate for 13 years. Some of her major responsibilities included drafting child nutrition and agriculture legislation for me, and for many other Senators.

After beginning her work for the Senate, she had a hand in crafting every major child nutrition law while I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, when Senator Lugar took over as chairman after me, and for Chairman Tom Harkin.

She will be sorely missed as the Senate prepares to complete the child nutrition reauthorization this year.

She was a careful, creative, and precise drafter of some of America's most important nutrition laws, which stand now in silent testament to her life.

She was as cheerful and careful at 2:00 p.m. working out complicated drafts, as she was at 2:00 a.m. working on even more complicated drafts. My senior nutrition counsel for many years, Ed Barron, drove her home more than once after the metro closed at midnight.

I know how hard this tragic loss weighs on her friends and colleagues at the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office.

She was admired by her peers, her friends, and her Senate clients.

It was clear from an early age that Janine would be a star. She graduated first in her class from Winchester High School in Massachusetts.

In 1986, she graduated with high honors from Harvard Law School. She clerked for the Honorable Cecil Poole on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Following her clerkship, she came to the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel.

According to Janine's friends here in the Senate, she loved life outside the Senate as much as her work within it. Janine loved theater, music, and swing dancing.

Of Janine it can truly be said, that there has ``passed away a glory from the Earth.''

The poet Wordsworth continues--

``Though nothing can bring back the hour

Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower;

We will grieve not, rather find

Strength in what remains behind.''

Janine has touched many of our lives and honored the Senate with her dedicated and outstanding service.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2002, introduced by Senator McConnell and Senator Feinstein. This legislation seeks to pressure the military junta in Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi and help bring democracy and human rights to Burma.

Several days last week, Senator McConnell came to the floor to speak on this issue. I want to commend him for his steadfast leadership, and associate myself with his remarks. I have also joined as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

The message that we are sending to the ruling junta in Burma is clear: Its behavior is outrageous. Aung San Suu Kyi is the rightful, democratically elected leader of Burma. She and her fellow opposition leaders must be immediately released. This legislation also sends a clear signal to the administration, ASEAN members, and the international community that we need to turn up the heat on this illegitimate regime.

The efforts of Senators McConnell and Feinstein are already having an impact. On June 5, 2003, the State Department issued a strong statement on this matter, which reads:

The continued detention in isolation of Aung San Suu Kyi

and other members of her political party is outrageous and

unacceptable. We call on the SPDC to release them

immediately, and to provide all necessary medical attention

to those who have been injured, including assistance from

international specialists. The offices of the National League

for Democracy closed by the SPDC should be reopened without

delay and their activities no longer proscribed.

But we all know that U.S. actions can only go so far. Bringing democracy and human rights to Burma will require active pressure from its neighbors in Southeast Asia, particularly

Thailand, Japan, and China. It will require these and other nations to disavow the failed policies of engagement. these policies simply have not worked.

I am pleased to see that the McConnell-Feinstein legislation attempts to trigger a process that will ratchet up the regional pressure on the Burmese Government. I am also glad to see that the United States has demarched every government in Southeast Asia on this issue.

In closing, I want to highlight the fact that the U.N. Envoy, Razali Ismail, was finally able to see Aung San Suu Kyi. According to CNN, Mr. Ismail said that she shows no signs of injury following clashes with a pro-government group. His exact words were ``she did not have a scratch on her and was feisty as usual.'' That is indeed good.

I was also glad to see Mr. Ismail call on the members of ASEAN to drop the organization's policy of nonintervention. He stated: ``ASEAN has to break through the straitjacket and start dealing with this issue. . . . The situation in Burma can only be changed if regional actors take their positions to act on it.''

I agree. The international community has a responsibility to act together to pressure the SPDC. The time for appeasement is over.