Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act, a bill to ensure that Federal employees can report fraud, waste, and abuse within their employer Federal agencies without fear of retaliation. I cosponsored this much needed reform in the last Congress and commend the junior Senator from Hawaii for reintroducing it today. Congress must encourage Federal employees with reasonable beliefs about governmental misconduct to report such fraud or abuse, but it must also protect those who blow the whistle rather than leave them vulnerable to reprisals.

Unfortunately, whistleblower protections under current law have been weakened by the Federal circuit, the court that now possesses exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such claims. The Federal circuit has issued a number of rulings that erode whistleblower rights in direct contradiction to the plain language of the law and the congressional intent of established whistleblower protections. The potential chilling effect of these decisions threatens to undermine the fundamental purpose underlying whistleblower laws. The Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act will address this problem by expanding judicial review of such cases to all Federal circuit courts of competent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction will then include the place where the whistleblower lives or where the Government misconduct occurred.

The bill also updates the current law. For example, it clarifies that whistleblower disclosures can come in many forms--such as oral or written, or formal or informal disclosures. It also broadens current law to reflect that reporting occurs in many different areas, such as over policy matters or individual misconduct. The law expands the current list of prohibited personnel actions against a whistleblower in two ways: One, the opening of an investigation of the employee, and two, the revocation of a security clearance. The bill also ensures that appropriate disciplinary actions are taken against managers who negative actions toward employees were motivated in any way by the employee's whistleblowing. More practical reforms are also included, such as making the collecting of attorney's fees available to whistleblowers who prevail in court. In addition, under the bill, consequential damages may be suffered by the employee if they are the result of a prohibited personnel practice.

Whistleblower information is one tool in helping the Government and private sector find ways to prevent future terrorist attacks as well. Though certain safeguards remain for intelligence-related or policy- making functions, the Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act maintains existing whistleblower rights for independently obtained critical infrastructure information without fear of criminal prosecution. These protections are needed to encourage individuals to submit information to the Government about cyberattacks or other threats that might affect the Nation's critical infrastructures.

Whistleblowers have proven to be important catalysts for much needed Government change over the years. From corporate fraud to governmental misconduct to media integrity, the importance of whistleblowers in galvanizing positive change cannot be questioned. I urge my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm Michael Chertoff to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 128 judges, including 25 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, 28 will have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 128 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 three 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 almost 40 percent with 6 months remaining to us this year.

Today's confirmation makes the eighth 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 for an entire 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. Indeed, we have reduced vacancies to their lowest level in the last 13 years. 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 we did for President Clinton's.

I hope that the Republican leadership will see fit to schedule Richard Wesley's nomination to the Second Circuit for a vote this week. When he is confirmed, he will be the 26th circuit court nominee of this President to be confirmed by the Senate. I expect that we will also proceed this week on the nominations of J. Ronnie Greer to be a Federal trial judge in Tennessee, Mark Kravitz to be a Federal trial judge in Connecticut and John Woodcock to be a federal trial judge in Maine. When they are all confirmed, as I expect they will be, the Senate will have confirmed more than 130 judges in less than 2 years.

As a followup to what the distinguished Senators from New Jersey have said, this is a case where on paper this could be a controversial judge, surely for Democrats, as someone who was actively involved in the Clinton impeachment matters and others. But I have worked with Mr. Chertoff. I have found him to be fair. I found him to be honest with me. I also am aware of the fact that the White House took the time-- something they normally don't do, or do not often do, I should say--to actually consult with the Senators from his home State. That makes a big difference because we have had problems, of course, where that hasn't been done or where there has not been consultation or where a nominee has been sent up to divide us, not unite us.

I will vote without any reservation for Mr. Chertoff.

Of course, I yield.

That is true. That includes 25 circuit judges.

It is extremely low. Actually the vacancy rate is lower than the unemployment rate in the country. It probably wouldn't be any, had it not been for the fact that 60 of President Clinton's nominees were blocked because 1 or more Republican Senators opposed them--1 or more. So they never got a vote. And had they gotten a vote, there would be no vacancy at all.

That is right. We have stopped 2 so far; we have confirmed 128. I would note that friends on the other side of the aisle, when President Clinton was here, stopped 60, not by votes but by just simply having 1 or 2 Republicans object so they were never even allowed to have a vote. In fact, when the Republicans were in charge in 1995 and 1996 and 1997, when President Clinton was here, Republicans allowed 111 judicial nominees to be confirmed and only 18 circuit court judges. In 2\1/2\ years, we have done 128 judges for President Bush and 25 circuit court judges. So crocodile tears have been shed. Unfortunately, it is embarrassing when you tell the other side the numbers.

Is there any time remaining on both sides?

I withhold my time.

Mr. President, I know Mr. Chertoff is waiting, biting his nails, wondering if he will get through this. I would mention for those of my colleagues who might actually be watching this, I will vote for him. I will support him. I urge them to do the same.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, yesterday I wanted to give a statement on the indictment of Charles Taylor by the Special Court in Sierra Leone, but due to the rapidly changing events in West Africa and the lack of floor time because of extensive debates on the Defense Authorization and Energy bills, I did not get an opportunity. What follows is the statement that I sent to the State Department, Special Court, and United Nations officials, yesterday, expressing my views on this serious issue.

I rise today to voice my strong support for the decision of

the Special Court for Sierra Leone to indict Charles Taylor

for ``bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes,

crimes against humanity, and serious violations of

international humanitarian law in Sierra Leone.'' I commend

the Court's prosecutor, David Crane, for taking this decisive

action.

Since its inception, the Special Court has moved swiftly to

indict key figures allegedly involved in some of the worst

atrocities that occurred during the brutal civil war in

Sierra Leone during the late 1990s. The Court has also made

it a priority to emphasize outreach programs to further the

reconciliation process and promote the rule of law throughout

the country.

Despite important progress, we all know that the Court's

work would be grossly deficient if those most responsible for

these crimes were not brought to justice because they were

too hard to catch, were high officials of a foreign

government, or no longer resided inside of Sierra Leone. It

would be like the United States deciding against pursuing the

perpetrator of an act of terrorism on American soil, that

killed or maimed thousands of individuals, because he left

the country or was a high-ranking official in a foreign

government. That would be unacceptable.

That is precisely why Congress expressed its clear intent

that the Special Court for Sierra Leone should pursue those

most responsible, irrespective of where they currently

reside.

In the report that accompanied the Senate version of the

Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations bill, Report 107-58,

Congress stated in unambiguous terms: ``To build a lasting

peace, the Committee believes that it is imperative for the

international community to support a tribunal in order to

bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and other

atrocities in Sierra Leone, irrespective of where they

currently reside.''

This statement was later endorsed by the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations bill, Report 107-345, which put the House of Representatives on record on this issue as well.

Even before these reports were issued, Senators Feingold, Frist, McConnell and I wrote a letter to Secretary Powell, dated June 20, 2001, which stated: ``Because some of the individuals most responsible for the atrocities in Sierra Leone are no longer in the country, we believe it is imperative that the tribunal has the authority to prosecute culpable individuals--including senior Liberian officials-- regardless of where they reside. This will prevent such persons from escaping justice simply by leaving the country.''

I can safely say that we had one individual especially in mind when we drafted that text: Charles Taylor. I was the principal author of the letter and two Congressional reports referenced above.

The involvement of Charles Taylor in the conflict in Sierra Leone is well documented and I will not go into great detail here. I will simply say that there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves to be brought to justice before the Special Court.

To its credit, the State Department took the advice of Congress. The State Department successfully negotiated an agreement that established the Special Court for Sierra Leone and which did

not contain geographic restrictions on the Prosecutor, allowing him to go after Charles Taylor.

Perhaps the Prosecutor for the Court, David Crane, best described the Special Court's mandate: ``My office was given an international mandate by the United Nations and the Republic of Sierra Leone to follow the evidence impartially wherever it leads.''

Today, acting on information that Charles Taylor was traveling to Ghana, the Special Court unsealed an indictment for Charles Taylor, originally approved March 7, 2003, and served the outstanding warrant for his arrest on Ghanaian authorities and transmitted the arrest warrant to INTERPOL.

Again, I commend the prosecutor for taking this step. While I understand there are some, including in the Administration, who are concerned about the impact that this may have on the peace process now underway in West Africa, I agree with Mr. Crane's comments on this sensitive issue:

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.

The Ghanaian Government needs to act immediately. It needs to uphold the basic tenants of international law, apprehend Charles Taylor and hold him until arrangements can be made to transfer him to the Court. In addition, the State Department needs to send an unequivocal message to Accra that action on this issue is urgently needed.

This may be the only chance that we get for years to bring Charles Taylor to justice. It is imperative that, in its most important moment thus far, the United States and Ghana do everything in their power to apprehend Charles Taylor. If this does not occur, the world will have missed a golden opportunity to bring to justice one of the world's most heinous war criminals and advance the cause of international justice.

In closing, I would like to read into the Record Mr. Crane's statement issued today that describes the situation concerning Charles Taylor:

Today, on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone and the

international community, I announce the indictment of Charles

Ghankay Taylor, also known as Charles Ghankay Macarthur

Dapkpana Taylor.

The indictment accuses Taylor of ``bearing the greatest

responsibility'' for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and

serious violations of international humanitarian law within

the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996. The

indictment was judicially approved on March 7th and until

today, was sealed on my request to the Court.

My office was given an international mandate by the United

Nations and the Republic of Sierra Leone to follow the

evidence impartially wherever it leads. It has led us

unequivocally to Taylor.

Upon learning that Taylor was travelling to Ghana, the

Registrar of the Special Court served the outstanding warrant

for his arrest on Ghanaian authorities and transmitted the

arrest warrant to INTERPOL. This is the first time that his

presence outside of Liberia has been publicly confirmed. The

Registrar was doing his duty by carrying out the order of the

Court.

Furthermore, the 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 am aware that many members of the international community

have invested a great deal of energy in the current peace

talks. I want to make it clear that in reaching my decision

to make the indictment public. I have not consulted with any

state. I am acting as an independent prosecutor and this

decision was based solely on the law.

I also want to send a clear message to all factions

fighting in Liberia that they must respect international

humanitarian law. Commanders are under international legal

obligation to prevent their members from violating the laws

of war and committing crimes against humanity.

In accordance with Security Council resolutions 1315, 1470,

and 1478, now is the time for all nations to reinforce their

commitments to international peace and security. West Africa

will not know true peace until those behind the violence

answer for their actions. This office now calls upon the

international community to take decisive action to ensure

that Taylor is brought to justice.

Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

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

Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.

Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

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

Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the tax reconciliation bill conference report that is being considered by the Senate today because this tax cut bill is not fiscally responsible. When President Bush entered the White House, our country enjoyed a record budget surplus, but the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration has quickly turned that surplus into record deficits. And now this bill that was cooked up in secret between the White House and Congressional Republicans without any input from Congressional Democrats will bring our country further into debt, lead to more hard- working Americans losing their jobs, and put a greater share of the tax receipts in the pockets of the Nation's most privileged.

I voiced several concerns about this tax bill when the Senate voted on it last week. Now that the conference report is finished, I have even more. First, while I am pleased to see that this bill does contain $20 billion in financial assistance to ailing State and local governments, I am very concerned that the tax cuts in this bill

will once again wreak havoc on our already disastrous State budgets around the country. In my home State of Vermont, the State legislature stopped basing its State income tax on the Federal rates because of the costly cuts called for in the 2001 tax bill. Now, Vermont is going to be faced with somehow making up an additional $35 million in revenue because of the dividends and capital gains rate reductions in this bill. This is a very large amount of money for a State whose population is only 609,000. How will Vermont and the other States possibly make up these lost revenues without massive cuts to essential health, education, and homeland security services?

Second, these tax cuts are tilted even more heavily to the very wealthy than the tax cuts the President championed in 2001. Just look at the rate reductions. For the middle three income brackets in this country, rates would drop by 2 percentage points, but the top rate will fall by 3.6 percentage points. And according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 80 percent of dividend income goes to households with incomes over $100,000. Sadly, this administration has chosen to support tax policies where affluent people will reap enormous benefits, while working families will receive very little tax relief.

Third, this plan is riddled with Enron-like tax gimmickry by pretending that most of the provisions will sunset or expire at some arbitrary date in the future--dates chosen not to make good tax policy, but rather to make all the revenue losses fit into the $350 billion pot. The income tax rates and business expensing provisions will expire in 2006, and the dividends and capital gains rates will expire in 2009. By doing so, this bill attempts to jam in as much of the President's misguided dividend tax proposal as possible into the Senate's $350 billion limit at the expense of more reasonable tax reform provisions aimed at low- and middle-income working families. It is obvious that proponents of these tax cuts have no intention of allowing any of these provisions to expire and, in fact, will come back to the floors of the House and Senate again and again asking for them to be made permanent. Instead of acting in a fiscally responsible manner, they are masking from the American people the true, astronomical costs of this bill.

And fourth, these cuts will push our country deeper in debt. Earlier this month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office increased its Federal budget deficit projections for fiscal year 2003 from $246 billion to a record $304 billion. When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. Before this latest irresponsible tax bill, the $5.6 trillion surplus had shrunk to $20 billion. If this bill is enacted, that $20 billion will become a $1.8 trillion deficit--a fiscal swing in the wrong direction of $7.3 trillion in just 2 years.

Passing another enormous tax cut this year will only amplify this trend of growing deficits and add to the economic burdens our children and grandchildren will inherit. Increasing deficits will decrease national savings and increase long-term interest rates--effectively lowering the incomes of working Americans. At the same time the Bush administration is pushing for Congress to pass a $1 trillion increase in the Federal debt limit--the largest single jump ever--that does not account for the $350 billion in additional tax cuts that are part of this tax bill. I just do not think we can afford another large tax cut at this time until we get our own fiscal house in order.

Clearly, this tax cut plan is not about growing the economy or creating jobs. It is about starving the Government and wooing some voters. In fact, leading economists have stated repeatedly that the elimination of taxes on dividends paid to investors--the centerpiece of the President's tax cut proposal--would do very little to spur economic growth or reduce the Nation's jobless rate. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has questioned the long-term implications of the President's proposal by stating in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in February: ``I am one of the few people who still are not as yet convinced that stimulus is a desirable policy at this particular point.''

In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax cut bill because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and too fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits, and the economy is still floundering. In fact, over 2,200 jobs have been lost in Vermont since the beginning of the Bush administration. Passing another enormous tax cut this year will only continue this trend and increase the economic problems that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Earlier this year, the President said we should not pass our fiscal problems on to future Presidents, Congresses, and generations. I agree with him. Unfortunately, this tax cut bill will drive us deeper into debt and will do exactly what the President says we should avoid, burden our children.

As I said when this bill passed the Senate, I have two of the world's most perfect grandchildren. And while the promise of another tax cut sounds great, I am not going to ask my grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren to pay for it. It is not right. It is not fair. And it is not the American way.

Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes and enter into a colloquy on a very important subject with the senior Senator from Connecticut.

I yield to him for that purpose.

Asbestos Lawsuits Legislation

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for his words. We need to come together to craft effective legislation. If we do, we will resolve this asbestos litigation crisis.

The senior Senator from Connecticut has done yeoman service in bringing together the affected industries--the insurance companies, labor, and others--in meeting after meeting. I convened the first Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last September on asbestos litigation. We wanted to begin a bipartisan dialog about the best way to provide fair and efficient compensation, both to current victims and those yet to come.

Since last fall we have learned a lot about the harm wreaked by asbestos exposure. The victims continue to suffer, the numbers continue to grow, but the businesses involved in the litigation, along with their employees and their retirees, are suffering from the economic uncertainty surrounding this issue.

More than 50 companies have filed for bankruptcy because of asbestos- related bills. We have a lose-lose situation. The victims who deserve fair compensation do not receive it, and the bankrupt companies cannot create new jobs or invest in the economy. That is why Senator Dodd and I have been working for months with Senator Hatch, Senator Carper, Senator Nelson, Senator DeWine, and others trying to bring together industry and labor and others for a national trust fund solution. The summit Senator Dodd had last month of all the stakeholders is bringing them closer together to find common ground.

We have made great progress since that summit. I have heard from all the parties involved since Senator Dodd brought them together. They found that some of the differences they had started to go away. Chairman Hatch has worked hard drafting asbestos legislation. He put in a draft yesterday.

I agreed to take all these cases, if we can, out of the tort system, and establish a national trust fund. I agree the national trust fund has to contain medical criteria to quickly compensate legitimate victims and weed out frivolous claims. Our effort is so unprecedented that we have to work closely together.

I close with this: The only kind of legislation that will pass through here this year or next is going to be consensus legislation. If we are going to have consensus legislation, we must all continue to work on a final plan. We are not there yet. We are getting closer. We are still not there.

I commend the Senators on both sides of the aisle. We will work together throughout the recess in the hopes we can get back to that.

Mr. President, before I begin, I should note my good friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, is on the floor. He had to put a unanimous consent request earlier, knowing that under the procedures we follow, it would be objected to by the senior Senator from West Virginia.

I will tell my friend from Missouri that in my 29 years here, I have never heard an objection so eloquently stated as was stated by the senior Senator from West Virginia. I think of the number of times we all make these requests, and most of the time unanimous consent requests are granted, as the Senator knows. For example, he recently made one allowing the junior Senator to speak and for me to follow. I can't help but think it would be nice if sometimes it wouldn't get so rancorous around here, if we could hear more of the words of Senator Byrd in this regard. He included a history, geography and literature lesson, all in a simple ``I object.'' It makes life better.

I wish my friend from Missouri a good break, as I do my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer. He will soon, I am sure, be heading to New Hampshire, as I will to Vermont.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a far more serious matter. I listened to the speech the President gave at the Coast Guard Academy a few days ago. I must say that this Democrat agrees with so many of the things the President said. I was especially pleased to hear him speak about the importance of foreign aid to America's security. But I became concerned after I looked behind the rhetoric of the President's speech. I wanted to see if the President's own budget request reflected his words. It does not.

At the Coast Guard Academy, the President spent a good deal of time talking about the global AIDS crisis, the worst public health threat in human history. I commend President Bush for that. He has shown great leadership on AIDS, although a bipartisan group in Congress has been pushing for action on AIDS for years.

The bill we passed last week, an authorization bill, authorized $15 billion over 5 years to combat AIDS , tuberculosis and malaria. It is an important step forward. It showed that we are beginning to take the AIDS pandemic seriously. But before we all applaud ourselves and pat ourselves on the back, let's have a dose of reality. This was an authorization bill. It does not appropriate any money.

For all intents and purposes, it is like writing a check without enough money in the bank. I can recall a meeting on a different subject where someone was offering a pledge of close to $1 billion to fund an initiative. Kidding around, I said: I will double that. I will give you my check for $2 billion. In fact, I had $138 in a checking account.

That is what we have done here. By passing the AIDS authorization bill, we have promised to write a check without enough money in the bank.

Let me explain. The President's budget request contains only about half of the $3 billion authorized for AIDS for fiscal year 2004. It remains to be seen whether the promise of that bill--a promise with which I agree--will be fulfilled. To do that, the President is going to have to submit a budget amendment for the balance of these funds.

It also remains to be seen whether the Foreign Operations Subcommittee will get the allocation that supports that amount.

The bill we passed also authorized $1 billion for the global fund to fight AIDS and TB and malaria. Again, another promise. For fiscal year 2004, the President has only budgeted $200 million for the Global Fund, that is one-fifth of the amount we authorized. In addition, it is a cut of $150 million from what was appropriated last year.

There is another problem. While the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for foreign operations does include approximately $1.2 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in HIV/AIDS programs, as the President's budget cuts other essential international health programs anywhere from 5 to 63 percent.

Let's take a look at the chart. The information on this chart, incidentally, is from the United States Agency for International Development.

Child survival and maternal health programs are cut by 12 percent. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths each year. People will be astounded when they hear how many of these types of deaths occur each year. Six hundred thousand deaths. Many of these deaths could be easily prevented if we just put more resources into these programs. Instead, the President's budget cuts these programs by 12 percent.

It would cut programs for vulnerable children by 63 percent.

It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases such as measles.

Measles kill 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million children a year. Again, this is something which is easily preventable. Every one of us can just go to the doctor's office and get our children and grandchildren immunized against measles. In many poor nations, parents and grandparents do not have that luxury. They need our help.

Does the President's budget show leadership on this issue? No. It cuts the programs which help combat measles, as well as polio, SARS, and other deadly diseases by 32 percent.

These are not my numbers, these are the administration's numbers. These numbers are in the President's budget.

Are we in favor of stopping children in poor countries from dying of measles? Of course we are. Are we in favor of fighting SARS? Of course we are. Are we in favor of fighting polio? Of course we are. Who is going to say they are against it? No one.

But, when you look at this budget, there are cuts to these and other critical international health programs. These cuts also include programs for disease surveillance. In the past, these funds for disease surveillance have been used to strengthen the World Health Organization's ability to respond quickly to outbreaks like SARS.

Everybody in this Chamber knows we will have another outbreak of either SARS or, perhaps, something far worse. There is no question that we need disease surveillance programs, because every one of these diseases is just one airplane trip away from the United States. Why would we want to cut funds for these programs?

The President's budget would also cut funds for drug resistance, which is a looming public health crisis. Many lifesaving antibiotics are already virtually useless because of resistance caused by the misuse of these drugs. The President's budget cuts funds to combat drug resistance.

While the President's budget would increase funding to combat AIDS-- although nowhere near the amount promised in the bill we passed last week--it does so by cutting the budget for other global health programs.

These cuts will hurt children the most in countries where vaccines costing a few pennies make the difference between life and death. That is not acceptable.

If somebody said to us, look at those five children, you can save their lives by spending a dollar, would we do it? Of course, we would do it. Why then does the President's budget do the opposite by cutting these programs? I find this deeply troubling.

These are not Democratic or Republican programs. I have been joined time and again by colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support these initiatives in both the Senate and the House.

Mr. President, anyone who knows anything about public health knows that building the health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if you are going to effectively combat AIDS. It is the same thing with child nutrition. It is the same thing with maternal and reproductive health. You don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't an either/or proposition. People who are malnourished, who are in poor health, who have weak immune systems, who are at risk of other infections, are far more vulnerable to AIDS. It is common sense.

In addition to helping to combat AIDS, these international health programs are vitally important for their own sake. They save millions of lives for very little money. They fight diseases that we eradicated in the U.S. years ago. When I was growing up, the municipal pool would close in the summer because of polio. You never hear of such things anymore. We should be doing the same thing overseas with these types of diseases--making them a thing of the past.

Over the past 5 years, we have built up these global health programs, and each year they yield more and more results. It would be unconscionable to cut these programs. But that is exactly what the President is asking Congress to do--cut these programs.

Last week, Republicans opposed our amendments to correct some serious problems in the AIDS bill--problems they acknowledged. They said we could not take time to get the bill right, because we needed to act quickly so the President could point to this bill as a sign of U.S. leadership at the Group of Eight meeting in France next month.

Let's be serious. If the White House had wanted, they easily could have supported those amendments and made this a better bill. We also could have made sure that this bill got to the President's desk in plenty of time. It is clear to me that the other side's opposition had a lot more to do with political ideology than the President's travel schedule. And, that is simply not enough to justify the provisions in the bill that are going to make it more difficult to prevent the spread of AIDS. As a result, the President will go to France with an AIDS bill that is only half funded.

In addition, he is going to use that bill to urge other nations to do more to fight AIDS. Now, I agree that other nations should do more. This is not something the U.S. could or should do alone. But the world should ask the President, the leader of the wealthiest nation on earth, whether he is going to back up his own words with deeds.

When he asks others to do more, as he should, his own budget should not slash funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and for other international health programs. The world should also ask why the United States is spending less than 1 percent on programs to combat poverty, including global health. After all, we are the wealthiest Nation on Earth. It is not only in our security interests, but also our moral responsibility, to do more.

Mr. President, at the Coast Guard Academy, President Bush spoke about other important foreign aid programs, such as the Peace Corps, Famine Fund, and the Millennium Challenge initiative. Not surprisingly, these are some of the programs his foreign aid budget favors.

But he did not mention that his budget not only slashes funding for global health but also for development assistance, which pays for everything from children's education, to agriculture research, to democracy building. His budget cuts food aid and assistance to refugees--the world's most vulnerable people. And, we have all seen the images of refugee camps around the world. People pushed from their homes because of famine or war or natural disasters often end up living in horrendous conditions.

This is not compassionate conservatism. It may conserve money, but it is not compassionate. It is shameful.

More to the point, the President's national security strategy recognizes the essential role of foreign aid. While we read about the importance of foreign aid in his national security strategy, we don't see it in his budget request.

Look at this chart. Food aid is cut by 17 percent. International disaster assistance for floods and earthquakes and wars is cut by 18 percent.

We hear a lot of speeches on the floor talking about our moral responsibility to the rest of the world.

While we may feel good about giving these speeches, I do not feel good about the lofty rhetoric that bears little resemblance to reality. And, unfortunately, we have another great example of this in the President's budget request. Great speeches, bad reality.

The President should do what he says. He should do what he is asking others to do. He should submit a budget amendment for the $3 billion authorized to fight AIDS. He also should request the funds to prevent the cuts to other vital global health programs.

Most importantly, he should start treating foreign aid for what it is: a critical investment in America's security. Less than 1 percent of the Federal budget is used to combat the conditions that cause poverty and conflict around the world. This is woefully inadequate. It shortchanges America's future. It invites insecurity.

One would have thought that if September 11 taught us anything, it was that business as usual is no longer tolerable. As I have said before, the President deserves credit for his Millennium Challenge initiative. It provides some additional foreign aid funds.

But, I ask Senators to look behind the curtain to see how it is funded. Some is new money. Sadly, the rest is from cuts to other essential programs.

And let's keep things in perspective. Before we congratulate ourselves too much, let's remind everyone that the Millennium Challenge, on an annual basis, amounts to less than what my own little State of Vermont of 600,000 people spends on public education. That is not a serious response to the challenges we face.

I also credit the President for his famine fund initiative, but I question what the real point is. He already has the authority he needs to respond to famines. The problem is that his fiscal year 2004 budget would cut title II food aid by more than the amount the famine fund would add. Again, robbing

Peter to pay Paul. Unfortunately, both Peter and Paul are starving.

If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources. Leadership means ideas. Leadership is not a press release.

Senator Feinstein, Senator Hagel, Senator Smith, and so many others, Democrats and Republicans, have spoken out about the need for substantially more resources to protect America's interests abroad. When are we going to stop talking and start acting?

As I have told the President before, I would strongly support him on these issues. But, I am not going to support empty rhetoric. I want to see the money. It is one thing to go on foreign trips and talk to leaders and say: Look at this AIDS authorization bill I have. But, it does not make much sense if the money is not there. And, in this budget, the money is not there.

I call on the President: Let's forget the politics. Let's come up with the right ideas on AIDS. Let's come up with the right ideas on the Millennium Challenge Account. But, once we have the right policies, let's put real resources behind these policies. And, to pay for these increases, we should not cut programs for global health, disaster assistance, refugees, food aid, development assistance, and immunizations.

Let's get rid of the rhetoric. Let's put some reality in there. If we do that, then the United States can show the promise and the moral leadership a great Nation should show.

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

Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed 127 judges nominated by President Bush, including 100 in the 17 months in which Democrats comprised the Senate majority. Twenty-seven have now been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 127 judges confirmed for President Bush is more confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of 1995, 1996 and 1997--the 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 14 percent and the circuit court total by 33 percent before Memorial Day and with 7 months remaining this year.

The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive and controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA and at least one who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the Republicans' fixation on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies has been reduced to 44 and is the lowest it has been in 13 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 44, in 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.1 percent, the lowest it has been in the last two decades. With some cooperation from the administration think of the additional progress we could be making.

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 to 1997. In addition, the 44 vacancies on the Federal courts around the country are significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end of 1997. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and Chairman Hatch continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial nominees at a rate of between two and four times as many as he did for President Clinton's.

Unfortunately, far too many of this President's nominees raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues. Those types of nominees should not be rushed through the process. I invite the President to work with us and to nominate more mainstream individuals with proven records and bipartisan support.

Mr. President, Washington is, without a doubt, one of the most beautiful cities in our country. It is also a city rich in history and cultural advantages.

Many people have, over the years, added to Washington's achievements and glories. One very special person who has done that is Betty Brown Casey. I have had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Casey because my wife, Marcelle, serves on the Board of the Washington Opera. Mrs. Casey has been one of the greatest supporters the Washington Opera has ever known

On Sunday, April 13, Mrs. Casey threw a party for the Washington Opera. This will go down as one of the greatest and most memorable parties thrown in this city. Marcelle and I were fortunate to attend, and when we left Washington before dawn the next morning, we had the joy of reading Roxanne Roberts' article about Mrs. Casey, titled ``Phenom of the Opera.''

I hope my fellow Senators will enjoy this as much as I did, and I ask unanimous consent that this article about this extraordinarily generous woman be printed in the Congressional Record.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered on this nomination?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, each of the Senators from California would like to speak.

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is another judicial nominee of President Bush whom Senate Democrats have strongly supported and whose consideration we had expedited through the Judiciary Committee.

I thank the Democratic leader and assistant leader for supporting Judge Callahan's nomination and working out this arrangement with the Republican leadership so that this consensus nomination can be considered without further delay. I appreciate that the majority leader has been willing to work with us to allow this nomination to go forward today.

I still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of this consensus nominee. Just as Senate Democrats last month cleared the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit without delay, so, too, the nomination of Judge Callahan to the Ninth Circuit was cleared on the Democratic side promptly. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report her nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators indicated that they were eager to proceed with her nomination and, after a reasonable period of debate, vote on her nomination.

Unlike the divisive nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to the same court, both home-State Senators support the nomination of Judge Callahan and she is expected to be confirmed by an extraordinary majority--maybe unanimously. Rather than disregarding time-honored rules and Senate practices, I urged my friends on the other side of the aisle to help us fill more judicial vacancies more quickly by bringing those nominations that have bipartisan support, like Judge Callahan, to the front of the line for committee hearings and floor votes. I noted in a statement last week to make the point that the nomination of Judge Callahan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was cleared on the Democratic side.

We still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of the consensus nomination of Judge Prado for a month. I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for its support of that nomination as well as for its support of Judge Callahan, and for working with the Senate to bringing fair evaluation of these nominees and for adding their voice to the discussion of these lifetime appointments.

It is most unfortunate that so many partisans in this administration and on the other side of the aisle insist on bogging down consensus matters and consensus nominees in order to focus exclusively on the most divisive and controversial of this President's nominees as he continues his efforts to pack the courts. Democratic Senators have worked very hard to cooperate with this administration in order to fill judicial vacancies. What the other side seeks to obscure is our effort, our fairness and the progress we have been able to achieve without much help from the other side or the administration.

The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive and controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA and at least 1 who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the Republican's fixation on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies has been reduced to 45 and is the lowest it has been in 13 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 45, in 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.2 percent, the lowest it have been in the last two decades. With some cooperation from the administration, think of the additional progress we could be making.

Earlier this month, we were able to obtain Senate consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, and another distinguished Hispanic nominee, Judge Cecilia Altonaga, to be a Federal judge in Florida. We expedited consideration of that nominee at the request of Senator Graham of Florida. I am told that she is the first Cuban-American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench. Indeed, Democrats in the Senate have worked to expedite fair consideration of every Latino nominee this President has made to the Federal trial courts in addition to the nominations of Judge Prado and Judge Callahan.

As I have noted throughout the last 2 years, the Senate is able to move expeditiously when we have consensus nominees to consider. In a recent column, David Broder noted that he asked Alberto Gonzales if there was a lesson in Judge Prado's easy approval, but that Mr. Gonzales missed the point. In Mr. Broder's mind: ``The lesson seems obvious. Conservatives can be confirmed for the courts when they are well known in their communities and a broad range of their constituents have reason to think them fair-minded.'' Judge Consuelo Callahan is another such nominee.

With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 126 judges, including 24 circuit court nominees, nominated by President Bush, 100 in the 17 months in which Democrats comprised the Senate majority. The lesson that less controversial nominees are considered and confirmed more easily was the lesson of the last 2 years, but that lesson has been lost on this White House and the current Senate leadership.

One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed when Democrats controlled the Senate for 17 months, and 26 have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have controlled the confirmation process under President Bush. This total of 126 judges confirmed for President Bush is more confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of 1995, 1996 and 1997 the 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 13 percent and the circuit court total by 33 percent before Memorial Day and with 7 months remaining to us this year.

Today's confirmation makes the seventh court of appeals nominee confirmed by the Senate just this year. That meets the annual average achieved by Republican leadership from 1995 through the early part of 2001. The Republicans have now achieved as much in less than 5 months for President Bush as they used to allowed the Senate to achieve in a full year with President Clinton. They 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.

Understand that 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 to 1997. In addition, the 45 vacancies on the Federal courts around the country are significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end of 1997. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and Chairman Hatch continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial nominees at between two and four times as many as he did for President Clinton's.

Unfortunately, far too many of this President's nominees raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues. Those types of nominees should not be rushed through the process. I regret the administration's refusal to work with us to end the impasse it has created in connection with the Estrada nomination. The partisan politics of division that the administration is practicing with respect to that nomination are not helpful and not respectful of the damage done to the Hispanic community by insisting on so divisive a nominee.

I invite the President to work with us and to nominate more mainstream individuals like Judge Prado and Judge Callahan with proven records and bipartisan support. In connection with the unexplained Republican delay before consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, some suggested that Judge Prado had been delayed because Democratic Senators were likely to vote for him and thereby undercut the Republican's shameless charge that opposition to Miguel Estrada is based on his ethnicity.

We all know that the White House could have cooperated with the Senate by producing Mr. Estrada's work papers. This would have enabled the Senate to have voted on the Estrada nomination months ago. The request for his work papers was sent last May 15 and has been outstanding for more than a year. Rather than respond as every other administration has over the last 20 years and provide access to those papers, this White House has stonewalled. Rather than follow the policy of openness outlined by Attorney General Robert Jackson in the 1940s, this administration has stonewalled. And Republican Senators and other partisans could not wait to claim that the impasse created by the White House's change in policy and practice with respect to nominations was somehow attributable to Democrats being anti-Hispanic. The charge would be laughable if it were not so calculated to do political damage and to divide the Hispanic community. That is what Republican partisans hope is the result. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us to resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with its own EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in the Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees.

Judge Callahan is a fine candidate for elevation to the appeals court. She has years of experience serving on the bench in the state of California, first on the California Superior Court and then on the California Court of Appeal. She enjoys the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Not a single person or organization has submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about her. No controversy. No red flags. No basis for concern. No opposition. This explains why her nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote on an expedited basis.

During President Clinton's tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership. Republicans delayed consideration of a well-qualified Hispanic nominee to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and 39 Republicans voted against him. The confirmations of Latina circuit nominees Rosemary Barkett and Sonia Sotomayor were also delayed by Republicans. Judge Barkett was targeted for delay and defeat by Republicans based on claims about her judicial philosophy, but those efforts were not successful. After significant delays and an unsuccessful Republican filibuster, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of Judge Barkett. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who had received the ABA's highest rating and had been appointed to the district court by President George H.W. Bush, was targeted by Republicans for delay or defeat when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. She was eventually confirmed, although 29 Republicans voted against her.

The fact is that the Latino nominations that the Senate has received from this administration have been acted upon in an expeditious manner. They have overwhelmingly enjoyed bipartisan support. Under the Democratically led Senate, we swiftly granted hearings for and eventually confirmed Judge Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez and Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, and Judge Jose Linares of New Jersey to the district courts. This year, we also confirmed Judge James Otero of California, and we would have held his confirmation hearing last year if his ABA peer rating had been delivered to us in time for the scheduling of our last hearing. As I have noted, we also have recently confirmed Judge Cecilia Altonaga and Judge Edward Prado with unanimous Democratic support.

Judge Callahan's nomination was delayed on the Senate executive calendar unnecessarily in my view. I am pleased to see that at the urging of the Democratic leadership--the Republican majority has agreed to bring up this uncontroversial Latina nominee for a vote. I congratulate Judge Callahan and her family on her confirmation.

Mr. President, I thank both the majority leader and the distinguished Democratic leader for clearing this action. We have tried on this side of the aisle for some time to clear this nomination. I appreciate my friends on the Republican side lifting their hold. I support the nominee and yield back all time.

Mr. President, the delineation between an ``internationalist'' and ``isolationist'' has too often been drawn at the doctrine of preemption. Those who supported the war in Iraq are considered ``internationalists'' while those who did not, are shunted as ``isolationists.'' This classification is unprecedented in the more than two centuries of American foreign policy. Opposition to an unprovoked invasion is not isolationism. And internationalism is more than merely waging war.

On May 12, the Washington Post published an op-ed by my friend and our former colleague, Senator George McGovern. As he has done many times in the past, Senator McGovern has provided important and timely insights on U.S. foreign policy.

The debate over U.S. policy towards Iraq over the past several months has been littered with references to ``internationalists'' and ``isolationists.'' Senator McGovern has penned some important reflections about how these labels have been used in previous foreign policy debates.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the op-ed by Senator McGovern in the Washington Post on May 12, be printed in the Record so that all Senators and staff have an opportunity to review his comments.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a truly remarkable Vermonter who delivers ``justice on wheels'' to victims of domestic abuse.

Wynona Ward is the founder and director of Have Justice--Will Travel, HJWT, an innovative, mobile, multi-service program that assists rural victims of domestic violence through the legal process. She accomplishes this by combining her present profession as an attorney with her experiences as a truck driver to provide a variety of services--including free legal aid, in-home counseling, and transportation to and from court hearings and other social service appointments to rural families trapped in the generational cycle of abuse.

Based on her pioneering and inspirational work on behalf of domestic violence victims and their families, Wynona has been selected by Lifetime Television to be honored in ``Lifetime's Achievement Awards: Women Changing the World,'' which will air tonight. An independent panel of judges reviewed thousands of nominations before selecting six women for the honor. Wynona received the ``Champion Award,'' presented to a woman who overcame ``seemingly insurmountable odds to create a positive change for herself or others.''

Wynona was born into a poor family where alcoholism and abuse was routine--her father beat her mother and his 5 children, and sexually assaulted his daughters. Family violence was an accepted way of life then in rural Vermont. Local doctors treated the black-and-blues and other injuries that

frequently appeared on the bodies of Wynona, her mother and her siblings, but they never once asked how those bruises got there. No law required that they be reported, and even if suspected abuse were reported, law officials would hesitate to interfere with goings on in the home. The family had no choice but to suffer in secret.

To escape her abusive father, Wynona married young and then worked 15 years with her husband, Harold, in their own trucking business driving their 18-wheeler tractor-trailer unit cross-country. Years later, she received word from home that the abuse she had known was beginning for the next generation of her family. Wynona decided to take action by revealing the family secret so that her family could no longer deny that abuse existed, and volunteered as the victim's advocate for the child who had been sexually abused. Her experience led her to her current career after realizing how traumatizing and confusing the legal system can be for victims and their families.

After she turned 40, Wynona entered the Adult Degree Program at Vermont College of Norwich University. She and Harold continued to run their trucking business, and as they crossed the U.S., she completed her B.A. on a laptop in the living compartment of their truck. She then entered Vermont Law School, and in April 2000, she passed the bar and was sworn in as a licensed Vermont Attorney.

Drawing on her personal experience as a survivor of childhood domestic abuse, Wynona created a new way to bridge the legal, geographical, psychological, cultural and economic gaps that exist for battered women and their children. She came up with the concept of Have Justice--Will Travel from the knowledge that battered rural women living in isolation often lack education or job skills and access to telephones and transportation. They need comprehensive assistance in achieving self-reliance and independence. HJWT serves about 50 clients a year, and offers assistance to several hundred more women not only in Vermont but those in rural areas throughout the United States.

``Have Justice--Will Travel'' has been successful in serving women and children throughout the State of Vermont. It is a shining example for grassroots domestic violence assistance on a national level. I have met this extraordinary woman many times, and I never fail to be inspired and humbled by her dramatic personal story and her venture into a non-traditional career. I salute Wynona Ward today as a true champion.