[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19829-19842]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 19829]]

      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
         APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to proceed to H.R. 2506.


  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and coauthor of the bill with 
the Senator from Vermont, obviously, I would like to see the bill pass, 
and pass sometime soon. But the point this side of the aisle made 
yesterday afternoon is that we do need to have some cooperation in 
moving forward on the President's nominees for the circuit district 
courts across America.
  An essential part of our job in the Senate is confirming these 
judges. The President has nominated judges to fill these vacancies at a 
record pace.
  In fact, his first 11 nominations were sent to the Senate on May 9 of 
this year, more than 2 months earlier than any of the previous 3 
Presidents in their first years. Of these 11, all received either the 
highest or second highest rating available from the American Bar 
Association, and all have had their paperwork complete for many months. 
In eight situations, there were formal judicial emergencies. Yet only 
three have received a hearing.
  This is the situation in which we find ourselves. Looking back at 
recent history, looking at the first year of each of the three previous 
administrations, with one exception, every judge nominated before the 
August recess was confirmed before the end of the year.
  Let me repeat that. Looking back at the last three administrations, 
in the first year of each of the last administrations, every judge, 
with one exception, nominated prior to the August recess was confirmed 
in the first year of those administrations.
  There is simply no good reason to move so slowly. It is easy to have 
hearings, and when you have hearings, it is easy to have a number of 
different judges at that hearing. I am sure the chairman has made the 
point that he has had a number of hearings. The problem is we have not 
done any judges at the hearings. So we need to give these outstanding 
nominees an opportunity to have their hearings, to have their votes in 
the Judiciary Committee, and to have their votes on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Part of fighting the war on terrorism is to have a judiciary that is 
adequately staffed. There is a very significant, a very high vacancy 
rate currently in the Federal judiciary across America.
  This pace we have been following is just painstakingly slow and is 
really not necessary at all. As time passes and we do not have serious 
action on judicial nominees, the situation gets worse. Just today, 
another judge, Charles Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa, 
announced he has taken another status.
  Another day has gone by, and we have lost another judge. The vacancy 
situation has now risen to 109, which is almost 13 percent of the 
Federal bench. That means that more than 1 out of every 10 seats is 
unfilled. Justice delayed, as we all know, is justice denied. And if 
there is not a judge on the bench, obviously you cannot get justice.
  The situation is much worse than it was just a couple of years ago 
when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were urging action 
on judges. I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
understand that I am not engaging in hyperbole. My conclusions are 
based on the specific standards articulated by our Democratic 
colleagues.
  For example, just last year when there were only 76 vacancies--at the 
moment we have 109 vacancies--just last year when there were only 76 
vacancies, Senator Daschle stated:

       Looking at those figures, one might assume we have no 
     pressing need for Federal judges. In fact, just the opposite 
     is true. Today, there are 76 vacancies on the Federal bench. 
     Of those 76 vacancies, 29 have been empty so long they are 
     officially classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' The 
     failure to fill these vacancies is straining our Federal 
     court system and delaying justice for people all across this 
     country.

  That was March 8, 2000, at the time there were 76 vacancies, just 18 
months ago. Now there are 109 vacancies and very little to no action 
has been taken.
  Some of our colleagues have tried to shift the blame to the President 
for our lack of progress, but this is clearly not the case. As I 
indicated at the beginning of my remarks, President Bush has submitted 
more nominees to the Senate and at a faster pace than any President in 
recent memory.
  Specifically, he submitted his first batch of nominees in May, a full 
2 months before President Clinton submitted his first nominees. The 
administration has done an extraordinary job. President George Bush has 
gotten his nominees up here 2 months before President Clinton got his 
first nominee up. By the August recess, President Bush had submitted 44 
judicial nominees, another record. So the President and his 
administration, on the issue of getting nominees vetted and up to the 
Senate, has clearly surpassed recent administrations.
  You cannot blame our lack of progress on the change of control of the 
Senate and the time to get an organizing resolution because after the 
change in Senate control, 9 different Senate committees held 16 
different nomination hearings for 44 different nominees before 
reorganization was completed.
  Let's go over that again. It has been suggested that somehow the 
shift in control of the Senate slowed down the consideration of judges. 
Yet since the shift in the Senate, since the reorganizing resolution 
was passed, 9 different Senate committees held 16 different nomination 
hearings for 44 different nominees before reorganization was completed, 
and one of those committees even held a markup during the 
reorganization period. I am talking about the period during the 
discussion of reorganization.
  By contrast, during the same period, the Judiciary Committee did not 
hold a single confirmation hearing for any of the 39 judicial and 
executive branch nominees who were pending before us.
  Let's take a look at that one more time. I am talking about the 3-
week period when we were discussing how to reorganize the Senate. The 
Senate had shifted hands to the Democrats, and we had a 3-week period 
where we were discussing how to reorganize. During that 3-week period, 
9 different Senate committees held 16 different nomination hearings for 
44 different nominees prior to the reorganization discussion being 
completed. One of those committees even held a markup during the 
reorganization period.
  During that 3-week period we were discussing reorganization, after 
the Senate shifted hands to the Democrats, what was happening at the 
Judiciary Committee? Absolutely nothing. It did not hold a single 
confirmation hearing for any of the 39 judicial and executive branch 
nominees who were then pending before us.
  The notion that nothing could be done during the period we were 
discussing how to reorganize the Senate certainly did not affect these 
other nine committees that were holding hearings and in one case even 
held a markup on nominees for jobs other than the judicial jobs.
  It seems to me the reason for our slow progress has been a lack of 
efficiency. While we have had some hearings, we have not come close to 
getting the most out of the hearings. In fact, it seems as if we have 
gotten the least out of the most. Specifically, during the period from 
1998 to 2000, the Judiciary Committee averaged 4.2 judicial nominees 
per hearing. This year we have averaged only 1.4 judicial nominees per 
hearing. That is a pace that is three times as slow.
  The issue of having hearings is not as significant as the question of 
what did you do in the hearing.
  As I indicated, if you average up the number of judicial nominations 
dealt with per hearing, in 1998 it was 4.2 judicial nominees per 
hearing in the Judiciary Committee; in 1999, 4.2 judicial nominees per 
hearing; in the year 2000, 4.2 judicial nominees per hearing.

[[Page 19830]]

  This year, strangely, we have only dealt with 1.4 judicial nominees 
per hearing. The number of hearings is interesting but not relevant to 
the subject of processing judges because we have had only 1.4 judges 
dealt with per hearing even though each of the last 3 years there were 
4.2 judges per hearing. Obviously, we can do a lot better than that. It 
is not too late. The session is not over. It is not too late for the 
Senate to act, at least on the remaining 38 judicial nominees who were 
submitted to the Senate before the August recess.
  In the last three administrations, of the 30 judges submitted before 
the August recess, 23, or 77 percent, were confirmed in the fall after 
the August recess.
  I have to quote a colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
on our ability, if we set our minds to it, to do this. Last year, when 
there were only 60 vacancies, Senator Leahy said: Having begun so 
slowly in the first half of the year, we have much more to do before 
the Senate takes final action on judicial nominees this year. We 
misused all the time for adjournment to remedy the vacancies that have 
been perpetrated on the courts to the detriment of the American people 
and the administration of justice. That should be a top priority for 
the Senate the rest of the year.
  This was Chairman Leahy, last year, dealing with the very same kind 
of situation, which is to get our work done on judges, a year in which 
we were doing way more judges than we have done so far this year.
  I must correct my colleague from North Dakota who earlier today said 
our failure to act on the foreign operations bill, which I care deeply 
about, is jeopardizing much needed funds for embassy security. As the 
ranking member on this bill, I assure my colleagues that is not the 
case. The money for embassy security is not in the foreign operations 
bill, not in this bill at all. It is in the Commerce-Justice-State 
bill. So nothing is being jeopardized by the failure to pass the 
foreign operations bill on one day versus a few later, after we reach 
an understanding on how to deal with the President's nominees sent up 
before the August recess.
  In sum, all we are asking for is a specific concrete commitment to 
have President Bush's nominees treated in the same manner as nominees 
of his predecessors. Until we get such a commitment, I think it is 
clear from yesterday's vote it will be difficult to make progress on 
the appropriations bills. Let me again say, as an appropriator, as a 
former chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee, and now ranking 
member, I certainly would not argue that the bill is unimportant. It is 
an important bill. A long time ago, we learned how to walk and chew gum 
at the same time. We can do more than one thing. We can have hearings 
before the Judiciary Committee. We can deal with more than 1.2 judges 
per hearing. We can get our work done. We can get judges out of 
committee. We can get them voted on and pass appropriations bills at 
the same time.
  I hope sometime in the next day or two we will be able to reach an 
understanding as to how to go forward on both of these important 
issues, the foreign operations bill and the confirmation of the 
President's nominees, or at least a vote on them--Senators can 
certainly oppose them if they choose but vote on the nominees who came 
up before the August recess as we have done in previous years for other 
Presidents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have worked with Senator Daschle for 20 
years. I have served with him almost 20 years, or very close to 20 
years. When I came to Washington, he already was a veteran legislator. 
Since the first time I met him until just a few minutes ago when I 
talked with him, he has been one of the nicest, fairest people I have 
ever met. As a legislator, he qualifies as being outstanding. As 
minority and majority leader--and I have served under a significant 
number of them--he is unparalleled. He has the ability to understand 
issues, to work with people of all different persuasions and never, 
ever lose his patience and always has enough time to talk to someone. I 
am amazed at the ability he has, as harassed as he appears, to me, to 
be with people wanting this and wanting that, to take time in a lengthy 
telephone conversation with someone who has an issue.
  The only reason I am saying this, the minority doesn't understand the 
problem they have; that is, we have said we are going to move judicial 
nominations as quickly as we can. And we are. And we have. All of the 
cajoling and threatening they do on the other side will not get them 
any more judges. We are doing the very best we can.
  For the whole time that Senator Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee--and Senator Hatch is someone about whom I care a great deal; 
he comes from the neighboring State of Utah. I like him; I have no 
criticism of Senator Hatch. He never, during the time he was chairman 
of the committee, to my knowledge, held confirmation hearings 2 weeks 
in a row. We are going to do that. Maybe it will set some dangerous 
precedent where we will have judicial confirmation hearings 2 weeks in 
a row, but we are going do that because it is the right thing to do.
  My friend, about whom I care a great deal, the Senator from Kentucky, 
and I have worked together on a number of issues. As stated, it will be 
difficult to make progress unless something happens on the judges. I 
don't know what they want us to do to make progress on the judges. We 
cannot guarantee this many or that many.
  I spoke to Senator Leahy four times today on the judicial 
nominations. I have spoken to his staff. He is trying to come up with 
people for the hearing next week, but the paperwork is not in on the 
vast majority of the people. He cannot do the hearings unless the 
paperwork is completed.
  It is interesting, but you cannot do the hearings without the FBI 
report. You cannot do the hearings without the Justice Department 
reporting. You cannot do it unless all the paperwork, which is very 
traditional, is in. And it is not in. The fact they have sent people 
down here doesn't mean the paperwork is done. This isn't paperwork we 
invented. It is paperwork that has been traditional in trying to find 
out if this person should be a member of the Federal judiciary.
  As my friend from Kentucky said, it is difficult to make progress. He 
also said: You can do two things at once. That is what we have heard 
today.
  The Senator from Wyoming said we can do two things at once. Of 
course, we can do two things at once. But we are not even doing one 
thing. These appropriations bills are extremely important.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. On the issue of paperwork, according to my staff, 29 
of the judges have all the paperwork--29.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kentucky, I don't know where you 
are getting this information.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As a member of the committee, it is not a secret. We 
are entitled to know that.
  I am saying to my friend I believe the paperwork is completed, 
entirely completed, on 29 judges who are before the committee. A couple 
have had hearings.
  Mr. REID. Senator Leahy, to whom I spoke several times today, has 
indicated to me that the paperwork on the vast majority of the 
confirmations the President is seeking has not been completed. I also 
would say, in response to my friend from Kentucky, regarding the chart, 
``Judicial Nominations Per Hearing,'' the fact is, of course, the 
number of judges per hearing has some merit. But also it is 
acknowledged that Senator Leahy has held more hearings. So even though 
you do not do as many judges per hearing, if you do more hearings, it 
all adds up to the same thing anyway.
  As I have said here on several different occasions, you can prove 
anything with statistics or disprove anything with statistics. The fact 
is, we are ready to move forward on appropriations bills--``bills'' in 
the plural.

[[Page 19831]]

Senator Murkowski comes to the Chamber every day saying, let's do 
something on an energy package. We can't. We can't until we finish the 
business at hand.
  The continuing resolution is going to run out in a few days. Then we 
will need a third continuing resolution. It is 3 weeks until 
Thanksgiving. I hope the Senator from Alaska understands that there 
will be no energy bill, nor can there be, until we finish the work that 
we have. And the work now before us is the Foreign Operations Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 2002. My friend 
from Kentucky says it is a good bill and he supports it.
  Some are saying this is not all about judges; it is about having one 
big appropriations bill. This is a way to stall our individual 
appropriations bills and then we can have one big bill and go home. I 
think that would be too bad. There are specific things this 
administration has requested in this bill that will not happen unless 
it is done in this bill. It will not be done with a continuing 
resolution.
  We have people, especially from the heartland of this country, but 
there are others, of course, who also care a great deal about a farm 
bill. We can't take up a farm bill until we finish these measures that 
are now before the Senate, foreign operations and the other 
appropriations bills.
  I don't know what magic is expected. Of course, it is difficult to 
make progress, as my friend from Kentucky has said, when we are not 
allowed to go forward on any legislative matters. As I have said on a 
number of occasions, we have not held up judges saying we are going to 
hold these until we are able to move forward on appropriations bills. 
When there were judges last week, we reported them out. We have done 
that on all nominations. We have reported them out.
  There was talk this morning, why haven't you done all the Federal 
marshals? We haven't gotten any. The Judiciary Committee doesn't have 
any U.S. marshals. We can't report them out if we don't have them. Why 
don't we do U.S. Attorneys? There may be some who know better than I, 
but we have never seen a slower process in sending down U.S. Attorneys. 
Last week we reported 14 of those we have. We reported out 14 
attorneys. I am sure they have all taken their oaths of office by now.
  We are going to move forward as rapidly as we can on judicial 
nominations. If the minority doesn't want us to do the appropriations 
bills, then that is something they can do procedurally. They can stop 
us. They can bar us from doing that. But in the process, the important 
work of the Senate will not get done.
  No matter what happens with the minority, we are going to move 
forward in good faith and get as many judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. 
marshals as we can. Whatever they decide to do on the other side is not 
going to change the number of judges we are going to do. We are going 
to do the very best we can because we also believe it is important to 
the country to have a full staff of U.S. marshals, full staff of U.S. 
Attorneys, and a full Federal judiciary as quickly as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, the dispute is not 
about U.S. Attorneys or U.S. marshals. That is not why all the 
Republicans voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
foreign operations bill yesterday. It is about the judicial 
nominations.
  Mr. REID. Let me ask one question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I didn't bring up the number of U.S. marshals and U.S. 
Attorneys; various members of the minority brought this up as a form of 
criticism. And I am glad that is not a criticism because on those there 
really is no dispute; we are doing the very best we can.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Even on U.S. Attorneys, there are a number before the 
committee--I don't have the number before me--that have not been acted 
upon.
  The concern of the Republican conference, I assure my friend from 
Nevada and Members of the Senate, is not about U.S. Attorneys and about 
U.S. marshals. As we all know, those offices have a number of 
professional civil servants. In the U.S. Marshal Service and the 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, typically when there is a U.S. Attorney 
vacancy, there is an acting U.S. Attorney. They are able to function. 
But a judge who isn't there can't rule. When you have a judicial 
vacancy, you have a vacancy. There isn't such a thing as an assistant 
judge, a civil servant who can sit in cases and make rulings. The U.S. 
Attorneys offices are functioning. The U.S. Marshal Service is 
functioning. Absent judicial seats do not function.
  With regard to whether or not all the paperwork is in, I say to my 
friend from Nevada, I do now recall that the chairman has prepared a 
new questionnaire that he has sent out, I am told, over the last couple 
of weeks. Since there is a brandnew questionnaire that just went out in 
the last couple of weeks, it could be some of those are not in. But 
until the last 2 weeks, the understanding of the committee was that the 
completion of the ABA report completed a file. That has happened with 
29 of district and circuit judges who are ready to be acted upon. It is 
time to move.
  I see my friend and colleague from Arizona is here. I am happy to 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to make a couple of comments and 
then I know the Senator from Iowa wants to speak to a subject which is 
very, very important: U.S. relations with Pakistan. I am anxious he 
have that opportunity so I will be very brief.
  One of the things the Senator will say is that Pakistan has really 
stuck its neck out in support of the United States position in this war 
against terrorism. Pakistan is in a very dangerous neighborhood, and 
the United States has to do everything we can to support Pakistan in 
its time of need.
  Almost all of us in this body, and certainly the administration, 
agree with that proposition. So we are going to have to do everything 
we can to assist them. By the way, there are some things in the 
appropriations bill that will be before us, hopefully relatively soon, 
that will assist in this regard as well. In the meantime, there are a 
lot of other things we can be doing to assist Pakistan.
  In response to what has been said here with respect to the motion to 
proceed on the Foreign Operations bill, Senator McConnell is absolutely 
right about the delay that has been occurring in the consideration of 
judges. As he has said, he is the ranking member of this appropriations 
subcommittee and has chaired the subcommittee for the last several 
years. While it is important to get the foreign ops appropriations bill 
before us, the fact is we are going to have a foreign ops 
appropriations bill. We have a supplemental that covers the situation 
until then, so there is not a single day that goes by that we are not 
providing the money that is called for under this legislation. So this 
is not about holding up the Senate's business or holding up the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill. All of that is going to be done. That 
is not the issue before us.
  The issue before us is occasioned by the fact that there were some 
who said we are so busy we just can't get to these nominations. My 
response is: Fine, we will just call a time out until we can catch up 
with some of the nominations. In each of the three preceding 
administrations--the Reagan administration, 8 years' worth; the Bush 
administration, 4 years; and 8 years of President Clinton--in their 
first year every single one of the nominees that had been sent to the 
Senate by the August recess were confirmed by the end of the year with 
only one exception. Yet it is going to be virtually impossible for that 
to occur now. There were 44 nominees sent up by President Bush before 
the August recess. We have confirmed eight. That leaves 36. At the pace 
the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, is holding hearings, 
we are not going to be able to complete work on even half of those 
nominees.

[[Page 19832]]

  Part of the reason we have tried to focus attention on this matter is 
to say we have to get to work in the Judiciary Committee. We have to 
have the Judiciary Committee hold hearings, approve the nominees for 
consideration by the floor so all of us can then consider the nominees. 
They are going to be approved on the floor. I doubt very many, if any, 
are going to be disapproved. But certainly, in any event, whether you 
like the nominee or not, the argument has been made for years that they 
at least deserve a vote, and I think all of us would agree with that. 
So we have to do something to take up consideration on these nominees. 
Time is short. We have only another 4 or 5 or 6 weeks to go in this 
session.
  If we don't get to work here pretty soon, we are not going to be able 
to confirm the same percentage of judges that have been confirmed in 
prior administrations.
  There have been two parliamentary or rhetorical tacks taken by those 
on the other side of the aisle. One is the red herring, the President 
hasn't sent up very many nominees for U.S. marshals. That has nothing 
to do with the fact that a whole lot of nominees are pending for judge. 
I daresay, as important as the marshals are, the judges are more 
important. We have got to get them confirmed.
  Then there was the comment that the President could send up a lot 
more U.S. attorney nominations than he has. Again, it is a red herring. 
He could. We will confirm them, too. They are also important.
  But let's get back to the judges. In other words, let's stop trying 
to change the subject. President Bush has nominated more candidates for 
judgeship at this point in his Presidency than any of the past three 
Presidents.
  With respect to nominees to the court, the President has done his 
job. Granted, he got a bit of a late start because his term as 
President got a bit of a late start because of all of the business 
following the election results. But, once he got started, he named 
nominees at a faster pace than his three predecessors.
  That is what is pending before us--60 nominations with only 8 
confirmed. We are saying that all of those ought to be considered by 
the Senate and by the Judiciary Committee. But, at a minimum, those 
nominated prior to the August recess should be considered by the full 
Senate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator 
is right on the mark. It is not too late to do the right thing, which 
is one of the points we are trying to make to the Senate and to the 
country. In those first years of those three administrations to which 
the Senator made reference--and I have talked about others--77 percent 
of those confirmed were confirmed after the August recess, which means 
it is not too late.
  The idea some on the other side of the aisle may be thinking--that we 
can't possibly replicate the standard here--is not true. It can be 
done. We simply need to have hearings and have more than 1.4 judges 
heard per hearing. Hearings don't mean a whole lot if you are not 
having judges before the committee.
  I commend the Senator and echo his thoughts. It is not too late to do 
the right thing. That is what we are saying.
  Mr. KYL. Exactly. At the rate of 1.4 judges per hearing, there is no 
way we will be able to have enough judge nominations that can come to 
the Senate floor for confirmation before we adjourn for the year. That 
is why we have to not only have more hearings but we have to have more 
judges at each hearing.
  Basically, there are a couple of dozen, or more, of these pending 36 
that haven't had hearings. That means that even if you have one hearing 
per week rather than one per month, and you have maybe five candidates 
per hearing, you are just barely going to be able to have enough 
hearings to get the candidates voted on and get them to the Senate 
floor in order for us to be able to confirm them before year's end.
  While it is true that it is not too late, it will be too late if we 
don't get a commitment right away to have the Judiciary Committee hold 
hearings for the candidates and have business meetings at which the 
committee can then vote on them, and then have the ability for the full 
Senate to take up the nomination.
  To further validate what the Senator from Kentucky just said, the 
fact is that in almost every case in the past several years the 
nominees are voted on as a bloc by voice at the end of the day, or by a 
unanimous consent. In other words, the majority leader will usually 
stand up and say: I ask unanimous consent that we now go to Executive 
Calendar number such-and-such and consider the following 14 candidates 
for judge. The clerk reads the names. Is there any objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. It is done. That is all the time it takes.
  It is true that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee since June 
has insisted on rollcall votes on the Senate floor. That is fine, too. 
That takes 20 minutes per judge. We can do that. We can have debate 
before that. No problem. We are saying that we now have an opportunity 
do to that; let's do it.
  I want to make the point that you can try to change the subject if 
you want, but you can't deny that we are not moving as rapidly as 
possible. For anybody to stand here and say we are moving as rapidly as 
possible runs counter to the facts. We could be holding hearings. We 
are not. We could be voting to approve those who have had hearings. We 
are not. We could bring those people to the floor for a vote. We are 
not doing that. It is simply incorrect to say we are moving as fast as 
we can or that we are doing as much as we can.
  Unless somebody brings all of this to the attention of the American 
people and also the other people in the body, this matter simply slides 
until it becomes too late to consider those candidates.
  We should not be using the horrific events of September 11 and the 
business we have had since as an excuse not to take action on a matter. 
In fact, one can make the argument that it is more important than ever 
that we fill these important positions. That is simply the point I 
wanted to make.
  But I want to defer now to the Senator from Iowa who I know has an 
important point to make about this war on terrorism and the position of 
the United States in supporting one of our allies, in particular the 
country of Pakistan, something that is very important for us to do. In 
advance, I applaud his remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                          The National Agenda

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are in times when it seems 
we ought to be doing what is on the top of the national agenda. Meeting 
this terrorist threat, providing the resources to our military, and 
providing the humanitarian assistance in our efforts in Afghanistan 
clearly should be at the top of the agenda.
  In meeting the national economic condition we have seen as a result 
of the airlines having the difficulty of getting their passengers back, 
it took us 3\1/2\ weeks to get the aviation and airline security bill 
passed in this body. When it finally passed last Thursday, it was on a 
unanimous vote. But it was filibustered. We had to go through all the 
motions of breaking the filibuster to finally get it to where we would 
get a unanimous vote because different people had different agendas.
  So, too, we find ourselves now with the foreign operations 
appropriations bill being held off and last night having the motion for 
cloture defeated. We couldn't get 60 votes so that we could proceed on 
this very important appropriations bill that directly affects what we 
are doing on the other side of planet Earth at this moment. We simply 
must move swiftly to conduct the business of the American people.
  There is no more urgent pending business than this foreign operations 
bill that we are simply trying to get to, but we keep being held up in 
the Senate. This foreign operations bill gives the administration and 
Secretary of State Powell the resources and tools needed to build the 
international coalitions that are so necessary in fighting this war on 
terrorism. It is clearly necessary for us to be able to successfully

[[Page 19833]]

conduct the operations of Enduring Freedom.
  Specifically, this bill provides funding for the important 
international initiatives vital to conduct U.S. foreign policy.
  If this foreign operations bill does all of that, why are we having 
the difficulty of getting to it? Why can't we have our debates where 
there might be disagreement on something other than a bill that is so 
important to the national agenda and supporting our men and women in 
uniform over in the central Asian region of the world?
  Let me talk about something else that this bill does. It provides $5 
million for Afghan refugees.
  Why is that important? It is important because we have a major two-
pronged effort in Central Asia. We have the military effort, and we 
have the humanitarian effort. We are dropping food. We want to be able 
to win the hearts and minds of those people. We want to take the 
example of what has happened in North Korea, a communist dictatorship, 
where we have sent bags of food that the people of North Korea know 
have come from the United States because the bags say, in the native 
language, ``This is a gift from the people of the United States of 
America,'' and those people know it. Because of their starvation, those 
North Koreans are very appreciative.
  Do you know what they do with those bags, those sacks after, in fact, 
they have eaten the food? They use that material from the sacks for 
clothes, for suitcases, for anything that human ingenuity can think of 
to use those sacks. They recognize that the food has come from the 
United States because it says, in their language, ``This is a gift from 
the United States of America.'' So we have been very successful in 
doing that.
  So we ought to take the model of what we have done so successfully in 
our humanitarian aid in North Korea and apply it in Afghanistan. 
Secretary Powell came over to discuss a lot of these matters with the 
Foreign Relations Committee and this matter was brought up to him. He 
thought that was an excellent idea. But part of it depends on us 
passing this bill, this appropriations bill, which has $255 million for 
Afghan refugees. And we cannot even get this bill up because yesterday 
we only got some 50 votes to break this filibuster so we could get this 
bill to the floor.
  So here we are, still debating the motion to proceed. It is 
inconceivable to me, with what is at stake for this country and the 
interests of this country over in that part of the world near 
Afghanistan, that we have people who are delaying this legislation 
coming to a swift passage.
  Let me give you some additional items in this bill. There is $326 
million in this appropriations bill for nonproliferation, 
antiterrorism, demining, and related programs. One of the big problems 
is, even from the old days of the Afghan war with the former Soviet 
Union, there are so many mines that for our troops, once they are in 
there, or for nongovernmental companies going in to distribute food, 
there is the risk of detonation. We need to be in there demining.
  This foreign operations appropriations bill provides money for that. 
Why can't we get on with passing this legislation instead of it being 
derailed by a filibuster?
  This bill also includes $4 million for a terrorist interdiction 
program designed to enhance border security overseas to reduce 
terrorism. It also includes $38 million for the antiterrorism 
assistance program to support training and emergency and first 
responder training.
  Additionally, the bill provides important bilateral assistance to 
nations that are so important to both the Middle East peace process as 
well as fighting terrorism. It provides foreign assistance of $2.7 
billion to Israel, almost $2 billion to Egypt, and $228 million to 
Jordan. Need I remind you how important the King of Jordan and his 
government are to us as we knit together a coalition of Arab and Muslim 
nations to assist us in this war on terrorism. Yet we have people who 
are delaying this legislation for their own agenda. Their own agenda 
may be important to them, but is it as important to us in America as 
the war against terrorism?
  Let me suggest some other things this legislation says. It provides 
assistance for the independent states of the former Soviet Union--now 
get this--the Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia; former states of the former 
Soviet Union, now independent states that are absolutely critical as we 
knit together the coalition in this war against terrorism. U.S. support 
and assistance in these nations are needed now, and it is in our 
national security interests. Yet the legislation is being delayed. It 
is being filibustered in this Chamber.
  There are also other items in this legislation. We must keep the 
focus on the Andean region. This bill provides $718 million for the 
Andean regional initiative, which includes $147 million for 
humanitarian and development programs. This Andean initiative is a part 
of a balanced effort aimed at eradicating coca crops, supporting 
interdiction efforts, and strengthening the rule of law in those 
conflict-plagued regions of the world. This is critical to the U.S. 
focus on Latin America where democracy itself is being threatened. That 
is a very high priority in the agenda of protecting the interests of 
the United States. But we have people filibustering this bill, not 
allowing it to go forward.
  I daresay when it passes, it will probably pass almost unanimously, 
if we can ever get it to a vote. Yet we have people dragging their feet 
for their own specific agenda purposes.
  I will give you more examples. This legislation that is being held up 
right now provides funding recommendations for conflict resolution in 
the Middle East and the Balkans. It provides funding for conflict 
resolution in the War Crimes Tribunals in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and 
Sierra Leone, and it provides funding for regional democracy programs 
in Asia. Yet the legislation is being held up.
  So I urge our colleagues to put aside their differences and stand up 
for what is in the interests of the United States at this particularly 
critical time in our country. I ask all our colleagues to join in the 
spirit of bipartisanship we have had over the course of the last 
several weeks in sending a strong statement to the American people and 
to those around the world who would wish ill upon the United States. 
Let's send that strong message that we will move forward with a policy 
that is important to freedom, democracy, and American values, despite 
the efforts of those in the world who would try to undercut all things 
we hold so dear in this country.
  I plead with our colleagues, it is not in their interest to delay and 
to obfuscate, to use tactics of filibustering an appropriations bill 
that is so important to the national security interests of this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from 
Iowa.


                                PAKISTAN

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I take the floor to talk about our 
relationship with one of the longest, strongest allies we have ever had 
in this world and why I think it is so important for us at this point 
in time to recognize that and to move more aggressively towards 
reestablishing the kind of connections and ties and mutual support we 
have had with the nation of Pakistan in the past.
  Following the attacks of September 11, all eyes turned to South Asia 
and particularly to Afghanistan. Just as quickly, we began to look for 
allies in that region of the world. As has always been the case, the 
United States found a steadfast ally in Pakistan. Through thick and 
thin, we have never had a better ally in that region of the world and, 
in fact, in almost the entire world, but we have often failed to 
recognize this fact.
  Let's look at the record. Our close relationship with Pakistan began 
when that State was born in 1947 with the partition from India. At that 
time, we watched as the world began to divide into two camps--one led 
by the United States and the free world and democracies, and the other 
by the Soviet

[[Page 19834]]

Union and the Communists. The temptation for the Pakistanis to stay 
neutral at best or to be opportunistic and go with the Soviet Union, 
since it was so close to the borders of the Soviet states at that time, 
was enormous. But when Pakistan's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali 
Kahn, chose to undertake his first foreign travel out of Pakistan--this 
is the first prime minister of a newly formed country, very close to 
the Soviet Union, right on the border of Communist China--he took his 
first trip to the United States. In a speech to Members of the U.S. 
Congress at that time, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Kahn proclaimed:

       No threat or persuasion, no material peril or ideological 
     allurement could deflect Pakistan from its chosen path of 
     free democracy.

  Imagine that. This was in 1947. Since those days, Pakistan has stood 
with the United States time and time again. In 1950, Pakistan declared 
its unqualified support for our position in the Korean conflict. Keep 
in mind, Pakistan shares a border with Communist China. They sent 
troops to fight alongside us in Korea, barely 3 years after Pakistan 
became a nation.
  Soon after that, Pakistan joined CENTO and SEATO, the Southeast 
Treaty Organization, supporting the U.S. in the long struggle to 
contain communism. In 1959, the U.S. and Pakistan signed the mutual 
defense treaty, which, by the way, is still in effect today. One year 
after that, Pakistan allowed the United States to set up bases in their 
country to conduct U-2 flights over the Soviet Union.
  As those who are at least my age may recall, the U-2 flight of 
Francis Gary Powers, which we remember was the U-2 shot down by a 
missile in the Soviet Union, originated in the Pakistani city of 
Peshawar, which we read so much about today since it is right on the 
border of Pakistan. After that U-2 flight was downed in the Soviet 
Union, Nikita Khruschev, in one of his more infamous, belligerent 
speeches, threatened to ``wipe Peshawar off the face of the earth'' 
because they had allowed our U-2 flights to originate there.
  Despite its relative proximity to the Soviet Union and the immediate 
threat it posed, Pakistan continued to stand with America. The threat 
crept even closer as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. From the onset of 
that invasion in 1979 until the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Pakistan 
cooperated fully with the United States to roll back the Soviet threat. 
It became the staging area for our work with the rebel forces in 
Afghanistan to throw back the Soviets.
  Probably a little known fact: In every conflict the United States has 
fought since Korea, Pakistan has sent troops to fight alongside us 
every single time. They even sent troops to help us in Haiti, of all 
places. They sent troops to fight alongside us in the Gulf War.
  In the United Nations--check the record on this--Pakistan was one of 
our strongest allies in voting with us. Their neighbor to the east was 
voting more often with the Soviet Union, but Pakistan was one of the 
best votes we had to support the United States in all these years in 
the United Nations.
  Pakistan has also repeatedly taken courageous actions against 
terrorism in recent years. We may remember when the two CIA employees 
were shot and killed right in our own backyard. Pakistani authorities 
arrested and turned over several suspected terrorists, including Mr. 
Mir Aimal Kasi who was convicted of killing the two CIA employees. 
Pakistan picked him up, gave him over to our authorities so we could 
bring him here, try him, and convict him of those killings.
  They turned over Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, convicted for his role in the 
1993 World Trade Center bombing. Pakistan turned him over to us.
  In 1998, they detained Mohammed Sadiq Howaida, involved with the 
bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Time and time and time again, 
when we wanted the terrorists turned over, Pakistan not only helped us 
hunt them down, but arrested them and then turned them over to us.
  Since the dark day of September 11, when we turned to Pakistan once 
again in our time of great need, most Pakistanis and their government 
are bravely standing with us at substantial risk to themselves. I 
believe history will record this as one of Pakistan's finest hours. I 
hope the courageous support in the war against terrorism will now open 
a new era of unparalleled bilateral collaborations between our two 
great nations.
  Yes, we must continue to encourage Pakistan, as well as India, to 
pursue sound nuclear policies and to sign the comprehensive test ban 
treaty. I believe that will come with continued, positive engagement. 
It will come as Pakistanis see their role as a critical U.S. ally in 
the region and as they are more fully recognized as a great leader, 
especially among the Muslim nations of the world.
  Madam President, Pakistan now faces its gravest crisis since the 1971 
war with India, especially given its ethnic and religious makeup. 
Nevertheless, the Government of Pakistan has been remarkably 
forthcoming in its willingness to help the U.S. prosecute the war 
against the terrorists who perpetrated the recent horrific attacks in 
our country and their sponsors.
  President Musharraf has pledged to give the Americans just about 
everything they want.
  Now, that is just about as strong as what we heard from Prime 
Minister Blair in England. Yet this is from the President of a country 
in which there are elements--large elements--who support the Taliban 
and, quite frankly, do not support what the United States is doing. So 
President Musharraf has courageously stepped forward to help our 
country once again. We asked for an expanded information exchange 
between the United States and Pakistani intelligence services. They 
have given that to us. We asked for permission to use their air space 
for military purposes. They have given it to us. We asked for 
logistical support for any U.S. military operations to be launched from 
Pakistani territory. They have given us that commitment also.
  In short, in standing up to terrorism, no government--no government--
has been more responsive to U.S. requests since September 11, and no 
government is assuming greater risk to itself than the Government of 
Pakistan.
  The Bush administration is already moving on several fronts to 
solidify our short-term and long-term cooperation with the Government 
of Pakistan and to show our deep appreciation for the Pakistanis' 
strong support for the U.S.-led coalition that is now embarked on 
ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism. The remaining sanctions 
on Pakistan are in the process of being lifted. I compliment President 
Bush and his administration for beginning that process. Debt relief is 
being hammered out. U.S.-Pakistani military cooperation is quickly 
being restored--at least I hope so.
  The Senator from Arizona and I were just discussing this issue on the 
floor. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, was recently in Pakistan, I 
believe, toward the end of August and had several meetings with the 
military and with the President. We were discussing this issue.
  My friend, the Senator from Arizona, heard there are a lot of people 
in the Pakistani military--many of whom are retiring or getting ready 
to retire--who trained with or worked with our military who feel a 
close kinship with our military. Yet because we have cut off this 
military-to-military engagement over the last 20-some years, if I am 
not mistaken--pretty darn close to 20 years--we have a whole new 
generation of young military officers who have come in who have no 
connection with the United States.
  In many cases, they have come from areas of Pakistan where the forces 
maybe are not too supportive of the United States, and may be closer to 
the Taliban, have more sway.
  So I am hopeful that the President and the Congress will give him 
whatever authority he needs to allow our military, once again, to 
engage in military-to-military cooperation with the Pakistani military 
to make sure that we can bring Pakistani military officers over here 
for training and for the kind of intermilitary kind of cooperation that 
I believe will help build a more lasting and strong friendship between 
our two peoples.

[[Page 19835]]


  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am happy to.
  Mr. KYL. I commend the Senator for the points he is making. I will 
add one other point, which he hasn't mentioned yet, but I am sure he 
was probably getting ready. Pakistan has not been the same kind of 
democracy as the United States. The military of that country has pretty 
well controlled its nuclear armaments and forces, rather than being 
under civilian control. That is the way it is in Pakistan, and I know 
it to be important for the United States to know where the Pakistani 
military is coming from.
  As long as they have great relations with the United States, which 
the Senator from Iowa was referring to, I don't think we have too much 
concern that Pakistan's nuclear weaponry would fall into the wrong 
hands. If this younger officer corps, which is not as closely aligned 
with the West and the United States, were to become dominant in their 
military, and if the influence of the Taliban should continue to 
increase in Pakistan, I would think the United States would have great 
concern about who is controlling the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. That 
is another very important reason to support what the Senator is talking 
about right now.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for 
elaborating. That is a concern, and should be a concern, to all of us. 
Pakistan is a nuclear power. We want to make sure the control of those 
nuclear arms is in responsible hands and in the hands of a military 
that is closer to us.
  Again, we have tried over the years to reestablish our military 
training programs with Pakistan. I hope we can get that back on course. 
I remember when Pakistan, in good faith, purchased a number of F-16s 
from the United States. They paid for them, and then the United States 
reneged. I am not going to get into all those issues. Let me put it 
this way. There was a contractual relationship and the United States 
reneged on it. The F-16s never went. We kept their money and their 
planes for several years.
  Finally, the Clinton administration made good on the money in a sort 
of roundabout way. I often think today, with what we are doing in going 
after the terrorists and their sponsors in Afghanistan, would it not be 
nice to know that the Pakistani Air Force had those F-16s--the kind of 
planes that we fly--and maybe they would have had that close 
relationship to us. Yet after they purchased and paid for them, we 
would not let them have them and we kept their money for several years. 
It was one of the darkest times in our relationship with Pakistan. I 
remember it well.
  Several of us here, including myself, Senator Brownback from Kansas, 
and others, had worked long and hard to get that straightened out. 
Anyway, all of these steps--the debt relief, the sanctions being 
lifted, the restoration of the military cooperation, all of which I 
support--we need to do sooner rather than later. But still more needs 
to be done. We should use our voice and our vote in the IMF, the World 
Bank, and other international financial institutions, to help Pakistan 
secure new loans on more favorable terms for its beleaguered economy. 
We should also provide much more than the $100 million in assistance 
that President Bush has recently pledged to assist Pakistan with the 
rising flood of Afghan refugees.
  That is another thing I found when I visited Pakistan. There were 
over 1.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. They are left over from 
the Afghan war against the Soviets. These Afghans, for the most part, 
are living in refugee camps, poorly educated, poorly fed, and poorly 
housed. Pakistan did everything we asked them to do in prosecuting this 
proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Yet they have all 
these Afghan refugees there. Now more are coming across the border.
  Madam President, it was said to me a long time ago, before anybody 
ever heard of Osama bin Laden that these Afghan refugee camps are a 
breeding ground for the terrorists, a breeding ground now I know for 
Osama bin Laden and others. Pakistan needs help with these Afghan 
refugees. It is something we should have done a long time ago.
  Most important, now is the time for the United States to forge a new 
strategic partnership with Pakistan, while at the same time not giving 
up our ties with India. I do not believe it is one or the other. I am 
not saying we have to become friendly just with Pakistan and cut off 
India. I am not saying that at all. I know India and Pakistan have 
fought several wars in the past. I understand that. I believe we can 
maintain our ties with India and, at the same time, build a new 
strategic partnership with Pakistan.
  This new United States-Pakistani strategic partnership should be 
built upon three principal shared interests.
  First, the United States must commit to supporting a stable 
democratic Pakistan with a growing economy and at peace. With our 
support, Pakistan could serve as a model to many of the newly 
independent, mostly Muslim, countries of west and central Asia. Muslims 
could begin to see the United States as a willing economic partner in 
the Islamic world. That has not been the case for far too long.
  I am encouraged by the recent visit of Secretary Powell. As I read in 
the newspaper this morning, Secretary Powell and President Musharraf 
had discussed several items, one of which I noted with interest was 
educational assistance to Pakistan.
  During a visit to Pakistan, the then-President and Prime Minister and 
the head of education in Pakistan all met with me to tell me how bad 
the educational system was in Pakistan. They had all these phantom 
schools where people were being paid but no one was teaching anything. 
The structure of education had totally broken down in Pakistan.
  They knew I was on the Education Committee and the appropriations 
subcommittee for education, that it is a big interest of mine. They 
quite forthrightly asked if we could help them with educational 
assistance in Pakistan. So I came back and had a personal conversation 
with President Clinton, sort of debriefed him on my trip to Pakistan. I 
talked to him about this very point.
  I then called up my good friend Secretary of Education Dick Riley, 
and I talked to him about this. I said: The President is getting ready 
to take a trip to Pakistan and India in a couple of months. I would 
like to arrange for you, Mr. Secretary, to go with him to meet with 
people in Pakistan to begin to set up a structure whereby the United 
States could be involved with Pakistan in helping rearrange, 
restructure, and help build up their educational system in Pakistan.
  Everything was a green light. Secretary Riley was going to go with 
the President. The meetings were going to be set up in Pakistan. I 
thought this was going to signal a whole new era in our relationship 
with Pakistan. Then we know what happened. India, I thought in a very 
unwise and provocative maneuver, started exploding underground nuclear 
weapons again. In response to that, Pakistan exploded underground 
nuclear weapons. The President's trip was called off. A few months 
later, there was a military coup in Pakistan, a military government 
took over. That trip occurred later, but only in its barest form.
  That was a missed opportunity to establish, again, a new relationship 
with Pakistan. I am very encouraged that the present Government of 
Pakistan under President Musharraf has at least spoken with Secretary 
Powell about educational assistance. I will do whatever I can to help 
the Secretary of State and President Bush in whatever way to help 
provide that assistance.
  For too long, Pakistan has seen us as an ally who was there when it 
was in our interest and, when it was not in our immediate interest, we 
were gone. It was sort of, the United States uses us, they abuse us, 
and then they lose us. It is time to change that, and we must change 
that.
  It is true that Pakistan over its lifetime has had about half 
democratic governments and half military governments. In large part, 
that is because we have not paid attention, that we have not been as 
involved in helping establish and maintain the democratic

[[Page 19836]]

structures in Pakistan that are truly responsive to the wishes of the 
people of Pakistan. Now is the time to reestablish that.
  I said there are three principal shared interests: First, supporting 
a stable democratic Pakistan with a growing economy and at peace. 
Second, we share an interest in containing and reversing the nuclear 
arms race and missile technology proliferation in South Asia. An arms 
race may be good business for the arms dealers, but it is bad for the 
economic and social development of that entire region.
  Unless and until the issue of Kashmir is settled, or at least until 
we have such time that Kashmir becomes a negotiating issue between 
Pakistan and India, we are going to have trouble in South Asia. It is 
time for our ally India to recognize that it can no longer ignore this, 
it can no longer take the posture that there is nothing to negotiate, 
and it is time for the United States, I believe, to be involved as an 
honest broker, as a third party broker in bringing India and Pakistan 
together to begin the diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Kashmir. 
I believe now is the time to start that also, and I believe it is in 
all of our best interests to do so.
  I call upon Pakistan in that vein to use its powers to control any 
and all terrorist type activities that may be happening in Kashmir, to 
use its armed forces and its police power to keep and prevent any 
altercations that may then provoke India to fire back, as we saw happen 
just the other day. I call upon India to refrain from any military 
actions in Kashmir. There needs to be a hiatus, but there can only be 
that hiatus if the United States is willing to use its good offices as 
an honest third party broker to step in and help arrange the 
negotiations between India and Pakistan.
  Third, we must work together more closely and for as long as it takes 
to reduce the threat of not only the international terrorism of 
Pakistan but of international narcotics trafficking, the trafficking in 
women, and the use and abuse of child labor.
  Pakistan has been one of the more forthright of the nations in all of 
South Asia in cutting down on the use of child labor. At least the 
Pakistan Government in the past admitted there was child labor and that 
they were willing to do something about it. We engaged with them in 
efforts to cut back on child labor.
  Pakistan has been forthright in helping to cut down on narcotics 
trafficking.
  Pakistan has also been very helpful in trying to cut down on the 
trafficking in women all over South Asia.
  These are three things about which Pakistan and the United States 
share mutual concerns, and we need to work more closely with them on 
these threats.
  Madam President, the multifaceted war against terrorism and its 
sponsors is not a war against Islam. We know that. Pakistan was among 
the very first nations of the world to recognize this critical 
distinction and to act upon it. This is all the more courageous and 
noteworthy because obviously the vast majority of Pakistanis are 
Muslims.
  It is not enough to simply embrace our Muslim friends in Pakistan and 
elsewhere in times of armed conflict, uncertainty, and threats to the 
United States. We owe it to them, to ourselves, to a more peaceful 
world, to commit now to building a much closer, lasting relationship 
with an ever-expanding circle of Islamic nations based upon mutual 
understanding, democratization, more broad-based economic development, 
and shared prosperity.
  As I have often said since September 11, yes, we have to get these 
terrorists. We have to rip the wires out of their network. We have to 
bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and the other networks to justice. 
We need to break down the states that sponsor these terrorists. But if 
we do all of that and we walk away, our children and my grandchildren, 
30, 40 years from now, will be facing the same thing.
  From Indonesia in the South Pacific, to Morocco, in the east 
Atlantic, stretching across a broad belt of South Asia, southeast Asia, 
southwest Asia, and northern Africa, lies the Islamic world--1.5 
billion-plus people. It has become clear to me that the United States 
is not fully engaged with the people of the Islamic world. We have only 
dealt with the thin veneer of whatever dictator might be in charge, 
whatever prince or king, whatever shah at that point in time, and only 
if it serves some short-term best interests of the United States.
  We have failed to recognize the vast amount of poverty and 
illiteracy, the lack of decent things that make up the basics of life 
such as clean water and decent housing, a decent diet. So many of these 
people who live in the Islamic world from Indonesia to Morocco, so many 
live without education, without decent nutrition, without decent 
housing, with no hope.
  Perhaps out of this dark cloud that has now covered us will come a 
silver lining, that we will rid the world of organized terrorists, but 
that we will also recognize we must engage and embrace and be involved 
with that part of the world that encompasses over 20 percent of the 
world's population and that we must do it in a way that embraces their 
hopes and desires, their need to have a better share of the world's 
prosperity, their need for economic development, their need to have 
some hope for their kids and their grandkids for a better life.
  One image will always stick in my mind. I was in a small town in 
Pakistan, right on the border with India. It was a very poor community. 
I remember I met with one of the individuals, a man in charge of some 
of the city planning, who went to Harvard. He was there with almost an 
unimaginable task. We were driving down the street, a little dirt 
street, with sewage on both sides of the street. On the side of the 
sidewalks, up on the walk, was something that looked to me like maybe a 
barber shop. I am not certain what it was. Inside, while sitting in the 
car, literally 20 feet away, we saw a bunch of men sitting watching a 
color television. Obviously, it was the only television for quite a way 
around. They were watching the television, and on the screen was a 
soccer match being broadcast from England.
  I marveled at this. I saw these people in a poor community, with 
sewage in the streets, with not much in the way of clean water, a 
terrible educational system, bad housing, and they were watching a 
color television of this soccer match in England, with all these people 
who were dressed up and they were looking at all of the finery coming 
through that television. I thought, what are they thinking? They live 
like this, but they know there is another world that lives a lot 
differently.
  The world has shrunk in my lifetime, and, Madam President, in yours. 
We live in a world where we have instant communications and CNN. People 
know what is going on--not like it was when I was a kid. People know, 
those 1.5 billion Muslims in that part of the world, that, for whatever 
reason, they are not sharing in the world's prosperity. They know their 
kids don't have as much hope and they don't have as much hope for a 
better life.
  So maybe out of this dark cloud will come some silver lining that we 
will engage with this world in a sense of shared prosperity for the 
future of our entire globe. I believe much of this will hinge on our 
relationship with Pakistan. If we are now willing to reengage, to 
support a moderate Islamic state that does not shield and harbor 
terrorists but has arrested them and turned them over to us time after 
time, that has courageously stood up against those terrorists, that is 
supporting us in every way we could hope right now, that by 
establishing that relationship with Pakistan and not abandoning 
Pakistan once we put an end to the terrorists, I believe we will go a 
long way toward bringing that silver lining out of this dark cloud, for 
the entire Islamic world and for all of us.
  In this spirit, I plan to work with interested colleagues in the 
Senate and the House on both sides of the aisle to establish a 
congressional caucus on Pakistan and United States-Pakistani relations. 
After the terrible attacks of September 11, we must think anew and act 
anew toward the Islamic world. Let's start now by more fully embracing 
our long-time friends and partners

[[Page 19837]]

in Pakistan. Together, we can build a foundation of a just and lasting 
peace, as well as prosecute the war against the misguided fanatical 
terrorists who are our common enemy.
  I hope Senators and House Members will join together in establishing 
this congressional caucus on Pakistan and United States-Pakistani 
relations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I enjoyed listening to my friend from 
Iowa. I wish him every good wish for this caucus he will be starting. I 
hope to help him with that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as I stand here, I have no office in 
this complex. As we probably all know, about 30 offices had to be 
cleared out to do some precautionary air quality testing in the offices 
that were connected to the ventilation system in Leader Daschle's 
office. We know Leader Daschle's office received a letter that 
contained anthrax. They are taking every precaution.
  I want my colleagues to know we are all still working, even those who 
may not have an office at the moment. I thank the Senate staff and my 
colleagues in the Senate for being so wonderful and offering us their 
offices to use, their phones to use, their faxes, their computers, and 
the rest. We are fully functional.
  We have recorded a message for people calling this office. They are 
given the number of my Los Angeles office, so we will not leave people 
out there without a voice on the other end of our telephone.
  I thank my colleagues for their generosity of spirit and for being so 
kind to my staff. I also thank the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at 
Arms, and the Capitol physician for acting so swiftly to protect my 
staff. I am very certain that their steps will prove to be the right 
steps and that in fact we will have a high level of confidence that we 
are all OK.
  One of the reasons I think we will be OK is because, as Senator 
Daschle explained, the particular employee in his office handled this 
letter in such a fashion that it was quickly dropped to the floor, and 
we think, because of that, the effect will be minimal. Of course, we 
pray that is the case. I am confident and hopeful that will be the 
case.
  The reason I came down to the floor is not only to thank my 
colleagues for all their help, but also to plead with my Republican 
friends to let us move on with the business of the day. We are working 
out of makeshift offices, Republican and Democrat Senators alike who 
were caught in this situation. But we could do a lot more if we were 
working on the Senate floor with the important foreign operations bill 
that is pending before us.
  I have listened to colleagues who say, you are holding up judges. I 
have looked at the record. The fact is, we are moving forward with 
judges. The fact is, when Republicans were in charge, I waited once 4 
years--4 years--to get a vote on one wonderful judge who eventually 
passed through the Senate.
  We are not doing that. Senator Leahy is working to get the paperwork 
done. He is holding hearings. We have definitely moved much quicker 
than the Republicans did when Bill Clinton was President, if you 
compare the time periods.
  I am perplexed as to why we are having this slowdown. After all, our 
President says we are in a war. Certainly, it is a campaign against 
terrorism. This bill is essential.
  I will spend the next few minutes spelling out what is in this bill 
and why it is so important to move it forward.
  First of all, the bill invests $42 million to help countries 
strengthen their borders and secure their weapons facilities. This is 
very important. What we are talking about is a sum of money that will 
be given to our coalition partners to make sure that if they have 
weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction or weapons we do not 
want to have in the hands of the terrorists, they have the ability to 
secure these weapons and secure their borders. I would say it is 
elementary that we must take this step. They are helping us. We should 
help them make sure that these weapons cannot be stolen by terrorists.
  I say to my Republican friends, you are holding us up. Why in God's 
name would you hold us up at a time such as this? We should be moving 
quickly to secure those weapons.
  We have in this bill $175 million in infectious disease surveillance 
programs that can provide an early warning system against some of the 
world's deadliest and most contagious diseases. We are making speeches 
on the floor about the whole issue of bioterrorism, and here we have a 
bill that provides $175 million in infectious disease surveillance so 
we can stop these diseases from coming into this country which my 
Republican friends are holding up.
  Then in this bill we strengthen the coalition against terrorism by 
providing $5 billion in military and economic assistance to Egypt, 
Israel, and Jordan, countries that are critical to long-term peace and 
stability in the Middle East. Why would our Republican friends hold up 
this money? Why? It doesn't make any sense.
  It also provides $3.9 billion in military assistance to key NATO 
allies that are putting it on the line for our country right now, and 
to front-line states in the area of the conflict. These states are 
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tadzhikistan. These are the countries 
that are being so cooperative with us. They were formerly in the Soviet 
Union. They are helping us. They are helping our troops. Why would our 
Republican friends hold up this money? It does not make any sense.
  Then we hear our President, rightly so, beg the children of this 
country--and I want to support him 100 percent--to put $1 in an 
envelope and send it to the White House. I hope everyone will do it who 
is now listening. Send it to the children of Afghanistan. As he has 
stated eloquently, we are not in a war against the Afghan people. We 
are in a war against terrorism. In this bill we have funds, $255 
million, for refugee assistance to shelter Afghani refugees. That is 
$55 million more than the President requested.
  In this bill it says:

       The situation in Afghanistan is perhaps the most urgent, 
     the most massive humanitarian crisis anywhere.

  Let me repeat that, the bill--and it is bipartisan, I must say--says:

       The situation in Afghanistan is perhaps the most urgent, 
     the most massive humanitarian crisis anywhere.

  I don't understand. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
holding up this bill which will help the children and the women and the 
families, the innocents in Afghanistan, get on their feet again.
  Then in this bill we look ahead--and this is again a program where I 
so agree with the Bush administration and with Colin Powell: $337 
million for U.N. voluntary programs, the programs our President 
envisions will play an essential role in reconstructing Afghanistan 
after this campaign ends.
  That is just a part of what is in this bill: Tracking terrorists; 
warning against infectious diseases; strengthening our coalition 
against terrorism; feeding and sheltering the Afghan refugees, helping 
to make Afghanistan whole. That is just a part of the good things in 
this bill.
  Let me conclude. We have work to do and we are not doing it. We have 
done a lot on this floor in a bipartisan way. I thought the airline 
safety bill was stupendous, where we provided a marshal on every 
flight, where we said strengthen those cockpit doors, where we said 
make those screeners Federal employees working under law enforcement. 
We did that in a bipartisan way right here on this floor. I am proud 
that we did that.
  Why are we stopping now? I could show you the charts that depict that 
Senator Leahy, since he took over the Judiciary Committee just this 
summer, has done far more than the Republicans did in that same 
timeframe when Bill Clinton was President.
  I am all for getting judges. I am working hard with the 
administration, in my State, to get good, moderate judges. I will fight 
against anyone, right or left, who is a radical. But I

[[Page 19838]]

will support mainstream judges. We are working to do that, and we are 
bringing those judges to the floor of this Senate.
  To come here and say we are going to waste another day on an issue 
where we are doing better on our side than the Republicans did when the 
shoe was on the other foot seems to me to be bizarre. It is bizarre. We 
are in a crisis, an international crisis, and we are not doing our 
work.
  Look at this floor. There is no one here but my good friend from 
Virginia. I love to see him. We work together on so many things. We are 
working together on a bill that I think will pass which deals with 
travel and tourism, to set up a promotion agency within the Department 
of Commerce so we can go on the air and tell people to rediscover 
America. If they do not feel comfortable traveling to far away places, 
travel in America.
  We have work to do. My colleague in the chair has an incredible 
program she is working on to honor the victims of 9-11. What are we 
doing today? Nothing. People are sitting around here doing nothing but 
making speeches. The point of this speech is to get us off the dime, to 
get working.
  I want to work on this bill. I want to protect the people I represent 
and all Americans from ever having to face another crisis such as we 
did on 9-11 and another crisis such as what we are facing almost on a 
daily basis now from the anthrax situation.
  In closing, I want to tell people to put this in perspective. We have 
ways to treat this. If you are exposed to it and you go on antibiotics, 
you are going to be fine. We are going to deal with this. We are going 
to wrap our arms around it. But for goodness sake, let's work on the 
foreign operations bill.
  You wouldn't think we even had a problem, the way my Republican 
friends are acting--as if we can dillydally around until tomorrow and 
the day after to get money to fight terrorism. I am very upset about 
it. I don't mean to sound frightened. If I have, I apologize. But I 
believe it is very important that we do our work. After all, that is 
why our people sent us here.
  Thank you, very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I will speak briefly because we have a 
meeting shortly. Our time on the Republican side is to be protected 
between 4 and 5 for a meeting on the economic stimulus package.
  I listened to my friend from California, Senator Boxer, speak on the 
foreign operations bill. That bill will be passed. I think it is an 
important bill. I have enjoyed working with Senator Boxer on her 
tourism promotion, which I think is very important for our economy. I 
have enjoyed working with the Presiding Officer in allowing people all 
across this country to show their care in their communities for the 
6,000-plus people who lost their lives. There are going to be a lot of 
park projects, mentoring, recreational facilities, maybe computer 
laboratories, maybe homes for adults, and senior citizen programs 
across the country named for each and every one of the fallen victims 
of these violent acts of terrorism on our office buildings in our 
airplanes on September 11.
  I look forward to working with you. All of that is going to be done 
in less than a year. That will be a fitting memorial so we will 
remember those who lost their lives.
  The people taken from us by those terrorist attacks were good people. 
They were our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, grandparents, 
grandchildren, our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. They 
should be remembered.
  The foreign operations bill, while it is an important bill--and it 
will be passed--also is important in the administration of justice. We 
have a crisis in the administration of justice.
  Obviously, we have a crisis mentality so far as terrorism is 
concerned, as well as prosecuting the war on terrorism on the home 
front where we need to have our first responders better equipped. Our 
surveillance needs to be improved. In situations where there may be an 
anthrax scare, it needs to be properly identified and remedied. If it 
isn't anthrax, we need to make sure people are not panicked.
  I believe very strongly that those front-line people, the fire, 
rescue, and police officers who are working in the terrorist attack 
zone, ought to be accorded the same sort of tax policy treatment 
accorded to our military personnel.
  Under current Federal law--it is very good law--if our military men 
and women in uniform have to serve in a combat zone, their income taxes 
for that month are not paid because they are in a combat zone.
  This war on terrorism has changed the face of war. Now the terrorism 
war is not taken to military facilities but is taken to office 
buildings, to airplanes, to civilians, and to commercial airlines. We 
have seen that--whether it was an attack on the World Trade Center 
buildings or whether at the Pentagon or obviously the innocent people 
who were on the airplanes that were hijacked and turned into weapons. 
With that, we see that innocent, unprotected men, women, and children 
are now the targets and the victims of terrorist attacks.
  My view is that the firefighters, the rescue squad people, the heroic 
police officers, whether in New York City or at the Pentagon, are 
working in a combat zone. But it is called a terrorist attack zone. The 
President has so designated these areas. It would seem to me that these 
warriors and these patriots here at home in their heroic acts of 
working in these buildings and in these facilities--some of them with 
their last breath of life to get people out, to save lives, and also in 
the aftermath of pulling rubble out with their hands, breathing toxic 
air in the crumbling buildings--those individuals are also in a combat 
zone. It is a terrorist attack zone.
  It seems to me very logical and appropriate to adapt our tax laws so 
they do not have to pay income taxes for the month in which they are 
working in these combat zone areas, or terrorist attack zones.
  I have legislation in that regard. Hopefully, we will pass that, as 
well as legislation to say to the family members of those who have lost 
their lives that they will not have to worry about paying taxes.
  Again, using the analogy for those who serve in our military, if a 
man or woman in our Armed Forces is killed in combat, they are not 
subject to income taxes, and half of their estate taxes are forgiven. 
Again, the targets of these terrorist attacks were men, women, 
children, and families. It seems to me we should accord them the same 
sort of tax treatment.
  I have put in a bill, for which I have support from a good number of 
Senators, to say to those victims' survivors that they will not have to 
pay income taxes for the loss of their husband, wife, or other family 
member, and they will not have to be worrying about death or 
inheritance taxes. I think that is an appropriate and logical 
adaptation of law in that regard.
  So far as justice and the judicial system are concerned, there are 
currently 106 vacancies in the Federal courts, 31 at the circuit court 
and 75 at the district court level, which is higher--it is almost 50 
percent higher than the vacancy rate 2 years ago when many Democratic 
Senators, including the current chairman, Senator Leahy, complained 
about a vacancy crisis. That is when there was a 50-percent vacancy 
rate. Forty-one of those vacancies have been formally classified as 
judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the 
United States. This is the highest vacancy rate since 1994.
  Despite the high level of vacancies and the record pace of 
nominations, the judiciary has actually shrunk during the months since 
President Bush took office. In other words, the number of vacancies has 
increased, and the Federal Government has moved backwards in its effort 
to bring the judiciary up to full strength.
  During the first year of the Clinton administration, just to give you 
a sense of the pace of court nominees,

[[Page 19839]]

there were nominees for the court of appeals. Of those nominees, 60 
percent of President Clinton's court of appeals nominees were reported 
in the first year. In contrast, President Bush has nominated 25 circuit 
court nominees and the committee has reported 4. That is just 16 
percent. One of those was Roger Gregory of Virginia--a very good move. 
I am glad the committee reported Roger Gregory. But 16 percent is just 
not good enough.
  There are those who will say, gosh, this is the same as it has always 
been. Let's look at first-year comparisons of former Presidents.
  President Clinton nominated 32 judges by October 31 of his first year 
in office. Of those, 28--or 88 percent--were confirmed by the time 
Congress went out of session in 1993.
  Further, President George Herbert Walker Bush nominated 18 judges by 
October 31, 1989, of which 16--or 89 percent--were confirmed by the 
time Congress recessed by the end of the year.
  President Reagan's confirmation rate for pre-October 31 nominees 
confirmed during his first year was 100 percent.
  Now President George W. Bush has nominated 60 judges, and the Senate 
has confirmed only 8, a mere 13 percent. So that is the actual 
comparison.
  Currently, there are 108 empty seats in the Federal judiciary, which 
is about 12.6 percent of the total number of judgeships. This is the 
highest in modern history, except for the extraordinary event in 
December of 1990 when Congress created 85 new positions and, therefore, 
there were 85 vacancies all at once.
  I believe we can do better. I think these nominations ought to be 
acted on before we recess for the year, which will be the end of the 
President's first year in office. I think all of the President's 
nominations that were made prior to August certainly should be acted 
upon.
  Again, if you look at the history of the Senate, by the end of the 
President's first year in office, the Senate has acted on all judicial 
nominations made prior to the August recess; the only exception being 
one Clinton nominee the Senate acted on in the following year.
  If we are going to work with the President to reach his goal to 
address the current judicial vacancy crisis, then the Senate should 
confirm at least 40 more judges by the end of this session.
  I do not think this is too hard to do. It can be done if we work our 
will. I ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold these 
hearings. These individuals ought to be vetted, ought to be cross-
examined. Look at their record, their judicial philosophy, their 
demeanor, especially if they are district court judges.
  I think if they look at the competence, the qualities, and the 
characteristics of these judges, they will certainly find them to be 
individuals who ought to be on the bench administering justice.
  Clearly, we have a judicial crisis. These vacancies should not 
continue. We need to act in the Senate, not just do one thing at a 
time. Let's keep moving forward to make sure that, yes, we support our 
military, support our intelligence efforts, our diplomatic efforts in 
foreign operations, making sure we are properly reacting and 
stimulating our economy to get people back to work, making sure 
consumers have greater confidence and have the capability to then buy 
things so those who manufacture or produce various goods or services 
can start hiring again and get our economy moving again--but also we 
need to make sure the third branch of Government, the judicial branch, 
is at full strength, which it certainly is not with the 12.6-percent 
vacancy rate, which is an unprecedented high rate, again, as observed 
by those who see this as a crisis.
  We need to get to work in the Senate. I hope once we get a commitment 
to move forward, that we then, obviously, can move forward on the 
foreign operations bill, which is also a very important measure. But 
let's get our judicial branch of Government up to full strength. That 
is our duty and responsibility as well.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know there has been debate 
intermittently as we have discussed other issues about the appointment 
of judges, and the pace and the speed. Frankly, I sort of regret the 
debate in a certain sense because we have been working together very 
well as a body since September 11. The times call for bipartisanship. 
And this is an issue that is naturally a partisan issue.
  Some of the talk I have heard that the nomination of judges will be 
tied to bringing appropriations bills forward is not what we need at 
this time. But, nonetheless, it is proceeding.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee who has sort of been quite 
surprised that some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle--
they are indeed friends--would make this an issue right now, I thought 
I ought to try to answer it in as objective way as I could because as 
someone who serves on the Judiciary Committee, I have seen the speed 
with which we approved judges during the first 6 months, and the speed 
with which we have approved judges since Senator Leahy became chairman 
of the committee.
  By any measure and by any objective standard, we have done a lot more 
since Pat Leahy became chairman than we did before that time.
  To say we are slowing down the selection of judges is nonsensical to 
anyone. I would bet my bottom dollar that if we had 100 observers of 
the Judiciary Committee from a foreign planet, and they looked at the 
speed, both pre-Leahy and post-Leahy, all 100 of them would say the 
speed picked up when Pat Leahy became chairman.
  One wonders what the other side is trying to do. Are they trying to 
intimidate us into rushing judges we might want to dispute? Maybe. I 
hope not. They will not. I am not going to allow somebody I believe is 
not qualified for the bench to get on the bench because it is tied to 
something else or because the times ask for bipartisanship. We are not 
the ones who are making this matter an issue. But let me go into some 
of the details.
  The bottom line is very simple. We now have real work to do in this 
Chamber. This Judiciary Committee has worked long and hard on an 
antiterrorism bill. We are trying to appropriate money for foreign 
operations. More is needed now than ever before. We have not finished 
the business of improving airline security. We are just beginning the 
business of improving rail security. We are trying to finalize and 
examine how we ought to change our immigration laws. We have anthrax in 
our office buildings. We are facing threats we have never had to deal 
with before.
  Should we be filling the bench? Yes. Is that the No. 1 priority since 
September 11? Absolutely not. It is certainly not called for to tie 
appropriations bills or a foreign operations bill to the movement of 
judges. That is not marching to our higher instincts. That is not 
something the American public, looking on the Chamber, would say is the 
right thing to do at this time. It is not what they want.
  It is with regret that some of us have to come to the floor and 
defend Chairman Leahy. We shouldn't even have to do it. But when the 
Senator from Kentucky comes down and brings a chart that says let's 
look at the number of nominees considered for hearing, I guess we have 
to answer.
  Again, some of the arguments are on the verge of the ridiculous. They 
say: Let's look at the number of judges per hearing. That is not the 
standard. That is not the standard you folks want. If we had one 
hearing with six judges as opposed to five hearings for four judges, 
you wouldn't be happy.
  I was going to say to my colleague from Kentucky, but I couldn't get 
the floor, that it is sort of like saying how many chairs there are in 
the hearing

[[Page 19840]]

room. We have more chairs in the hearing room than you do. So? The 
standard is the number of judges approved.
  Let's set the record straight.
  First, Ranking Member Leahy became chairman on July 10. That is when 
the full committee was reconstituted. So he has been here over 3 
months, including, of course, the August recess. In effect, he has been 
here through two working months. Yet he is ahead of the pace set by 
Congress in the first year of the first Bush administration and the 
first year of the first Clinton administration.
  If there is anything at variance, you would have thought that the 
Democrat President and the Democrat Congress, which existed in 1993, 
would have wanted to rush through judges. Yet more judges passed this 
year.
  If you extrapolate Chairman Leahy's numbers over a full year--in 
other words, if the pace continues at the pace we have been proceeding 
thus far--then he is ahead of the pace set by the Republican-controlled 
Congress for the past 6 years.
  If anyone doubts his devotion, he was here in August when most of us 
were traveling around our districts and going on vacation, and whatever 
else people do during August recess. I do some of each. But he was here 
holding hearings.
  Since September 11, of course, we have been focused on the tragedies 
of that day and the new challenges that face our great country. 
Nonetheless, despite that, two more confirmation hearings have been 
held by Chairman Leahy. The third is coming on Thursday. I am supposed 
to chair it. I have lots of other things to do, given the state of my 
State and the state of the city, both of which I love. But we are 
sitting and holding hearings. It is unfair at best and not nice to say 
we are not working hard on it when we have so many other challenges.
  My good friend, Orrin Hatch, with whom I work on so many issues, has 
argued that his numbers were what they were because there were not 
enough nominees to confirm. There are some folks out there who disagree 
with that.
  Here are the names of nominees who were never confirmed:
  Judith McConnell from California; John Snodgrass from Alabama; Bruce 
Greer from Florida; James Beaty from North Carolina; Jimmy Klein from 
Washington, DC--I went to college with him--Legrome Davis from 
Pennsylvania; and Helene White from Ohio.
  Those are just a few of the 57 nominees from all over the country who 
never--underline ``never''--got a hearing from the Republican Judiciary 
Committee. Those 57 would be shocked to hear Republican Senators taking 
to the floor and claiming they had no one to confirm. They are not a 
``nobody,'' as somebody once said. That doesn't even begin to address 
the people who got hearings but had to wait and wait and wait.
  The average time of a circuit court nominee from the 105th and 106th 
Congresses awaiting confirmation under the Judiciary Committee chaired 
by my friend, Orrin Hatch, was 343 days. President Bush had not even 
been in office that long. Some took much longer. We know the reasons. 
Richard Paez took 1,520 days. Willie Fletcher waited 1,321 days. Hilda 
Tagle took 943 days. Susan Mollway took 914 days. Ann Aiken waited 791 
days. Timothy Dyk took 785 days.
  The list goes on and on. It sounds almost like the Bible. So and so 
lived 800 years, and begat so and so. The list goes on and on. We are a 
long way from seeing that under Chairman Leahy. I don't think we ever 
will.
  I believe there are three criteria for confirming judges. As I played 
a role, as we all do, in selection of judges in my State, I have had 
three words that sort of guide me. They are excellence, moderation, and 
diversity.
  By excellence, I mean legal excellence, among the best the bar has to 
offer. Being an article 3 judge, a lifetime judge, is such an important 
position. I believe that is important.
  Moderate: I do not like ideologues on the bench. I do not like judges 
too far to the right; I do not like judges too far to the left. I want 
judges who will have moderate approaches to the law.
  The third criteria is diversity. To me, that means we should not have 
all white males on the bench; we ought to make an effort for diversity 
in terms of race and gender but also ideology. I think a bench that had 
nine liberal Democrats would be just as bad as a bench that had nine 
conservative Republicans. You need some diversity of opinion. 
Obviously, depending on who is the President or who is in the Congress, 
there will be a tilt toward one direction or the other, but there ought 
to be some balance. Balance, to me, is the key word, as it is on so 
many issues these days.
  While we move on judges, we are not going to be pressured to move too 
rapidly. We need time--and a reasonable amount of time--to examine 
these judges' backgrounds and their opinions before we give them 
lifetime seats on the Federal bench.
  We are going to keep holding hearings for those nominees on whom we 
have done background research. We are going to keep confirming judges 
who merit confirmation. And we are going to do it at a pace that will 
exceed that done by my Republican friends across the aisle. Those are 
fair and reasonable commitments to this body. It is a fair commitment 
to the White House. It is a fair commitment to the American people.
  With those commitments we should return to the real and pressing 
business that awaits us. We should not be having just cloture votes at 
this crucial time. That is so wrong, so, so wrong.
  If you ask the American people, what are the top 5 issues, what are 
the top 10 issues, what are the top 50 issues, I do not think they 
would say the confirmation of judges is in that top 50. Yet we are 
slowing down important and vital legislation. Some people can make that 
link; it is wrong.
  So I say to my colleagues--I almost plead to them--America is at war, 
and you are bickering about judges. We need to get our eye back on the 
ball.
  Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of Senator 
Schumer on the Court Subcommittee. I know he is a good lawyer, and he 
cares about the court system. We have had some very interesting 
hearings under his leadership. They do, however, reflect an idea that 
was openly stated at a Democratic retreat early this year, that the 
ground rules for confirming judges to the courts should be changed. 
Apparently, at that retreat, a brilliant but liberal law professor, 
Laurence Tribe, and Cass Sunstein, and Marcia Greenberger advised the 
Democratic Senators that they should ``change the ground rules''--that 
is a quote from the New York Times--used in the confirmation process 
and make it more difficult to confirm judges.
  That is after the Senate gave President Clinton a fair hearing on his 
judges. This is important to note: In the 8 years that President 
Clinton was in office, he had confirmed 377 Federal judges. He only had 
one of his nominees voted down.
  According to my numbers, there were 41 nominees pending that did not 
get confirmed before he left office. That is a traditional number. 
There were 67 vacancies, but there were 41 nominees; he did not have 
nominees for the difference.
  So under Senator Hatch's leadership, when the Republicans had the 
majority in the committee, the Clinton nominees were scrutinized, they 
were examined, and, for the most part, they got through.
  Last fall, at the time we left--and in the last months of the Clinton 
administration--we constantly heard a drumbeat of complaints that the 
60-or-so vacancy level that was pending out there in the courts was 
jeopardizing justice in America. The truth is, you are going to have 
around 60 vacancies at all times.
  It takes a while for the President to decide who to nominate. There 
has to be an FBI background check. They have to get the nominees to 
fill out all kinds of questionnaires to make sure there is not 
something bad in their record. As I say, the FBI does a background 
check. The ABA does a background check. The nominees are sent

[[Page 19841]]

over here to the Judiciary Committee and are given a big questionnaire, 
which they have to fill out.
  Historically, we have seldom been below having 60 vacancies for 
judges. Now we are at about 110. And the very people who were on this 
floor last year, screaming mightily that 60, 67 was an outrage, are now 
suggesting they have no problem with 110.
  In my district, the southern district of Alabama, we have a three-
court district where I was a U.S. Attorney for 12 years. I practiced 
there before Federal judges. Really, it was for 15 years as an 
Assistant U.S. Attorney and a U.S. Attorney before Federal judges. They 
have a three-judge court. They only have one judge. There are two 
vacancies there.
  So we have some problems around the country that need to be dealt 
with. Here we are, and we are asked: What can you do about it? On the 
Judiciary Committee, President Bush's party, the Republican party, does 
not have a majority, so it cannot call hearings. It cannot force 
hearings. It cannot force votes. We are at the pleasure of the chairman 
and the majority.
  What we have seen is a systematic slowdown, consistent with the 
public statements that have been made previously of what they were 
going to do. That is beginning to put a crunch on the judiciary and 
really hurt justice in America. It is legitimate and proper that this 
matter be raised here in this Senate Chamber.
  Some say: Well, don't play politics with the foreign operations bill. 
You are playing politics with that.
  Let me just say it this way: Let's have a fair movement of President 
Bush's qualified judges. Let's see them move forward at a fair rate.
  They say: Well, you cannot complain about that. You cannot do 
anything about it. You cannot utilize any of the rules that are 
available to you Republicans because if you do, you are partisan. But 
we can sit on judges. We can delay hearings in the judiciary. And we 
can delay confirmations, but that is not partisan.
  We are getting close to the end of this session, and we are way 
behind where we need to be. Nobody, in my view, can dispute that. 
Nobody can dispute we have a growing vacancy problem in the courts. It 
is time for us to confront it.
  We have written letters to the chairman. We have talked to the 
majority leader. We have asked and asked for their help, and we are not 
getting it. So I do not think it is fair to say, those who have asked 
respectfully and urged movement of the judges in a fair and legitimate 
way, that we ought to be accused of being partisan.
  By the way, the foreign operations funding is operating under a 
continuing resolution. We are not shutting off funding for that. But 
what we are saying is that this is serious business. Moving judges is 
serious business. We want your attention, majority in the Senate, slim 
though it may be. We want your attention. We want your focus on judges. 
It is important to America. And we have a legitimate concern in that 
regard; and we are asking for that.
  Just a year ago, the then-minority leader, Tom Daschle, in July made 
a statement about moving the intelligence authorization bill. In recent 
weeks we have learned about how important the intelligence community 
is. The intelligence bill was on the floor, and in a nice way that the 
then-minority leader had to express himself; this is what he said:

       I also hope we can address the additional appropriations 
     bills. There is no reason we can't. We can find a compromise 
     if there is a will, and I am sure there is. But we also want 
     to see the list of what we expect will probably be the final 
     list of judicial nominees to be considered for hearings in 
     the Judiciary Committee this year. I am anxious to talk with 
     him [Trent Lott, the then-majority leader] and work with him 
     on that issue. All of this is interrelated, as he said, and 
     because of that, we take it slowly.

  In other words, that was a nice way of saying, from Mr. Daschle, that 
they were not going to move the intelligence authorization. He was not 
going to move that legislation until he got a commitment from the 
majority leader on judges. He wanted to know how many were going to be 
confirmed before the session ended.
  Sometimes those things occur. The minority in the Senate has the 
power to block consideration of bills. That is what he was doing at 
that time. That is basically what we are saying today. We are going to 
stop this legislation until we get some sort of good-faith commitment 
to move judges forward at this point in time.
  They say we didn't have any nominees in the first 6 months. The 
President of the United States has a lot to do in the first 6 months. 
He has to fill his Cabinet, his subcabinet, organize his government, 
working night and day, and submit judges. By May, President Bush had 
submitted a stellar list of judges, including at least three Democrats. 
What has happened on that?
  Three Democrats have had hearings and been confirmed. They found time 
for those. Seven out of the 18 have had hearings. They were nominated 
in May. Their backgrounds are sterling. It was a bipartisan blue ribbon 
group of nominees.
  The President reached out. He nominated one nominee that had been 
blocked by the Senate and had been held up. He renominated one of 
President Clinton's nominees as an act of good faith, to reach out. So 
what has happened? We have had confirmation of the three Democrats. We 
have had hearings on 7, and 11 of those nominated back in May have not 
even had a hearing. That is beyond the pale. That is unjustified.
  Since then, additional nominees have come forward for which there is 
no objection. Many of those nominees have been blessed already by the 
home State Democratic Senator. Many of them, the Republican Senators 
have all signed off on. They are ready to go, many of them, with no 
objection whatsoever. Their background checks are clean, and they are 
ready to go forward.
  We just need to have a hearing. We can't move a judge under our rules 
until the judge has been given a hearing. Any Senator has the right to 
ask them questions. I don't think this Senate should be a rubber stamp. 
They ought to be able to ask questions and examine their backgrounds 
and records. If they are not comfortable with it, vote no. But 
President Bush has given us a group of nominees that are mainstream 
superior judges and will do a great job on the bench. He is entitled to 
the same support and movement of his judges as President Clinton 
received.
  They say we have a lot to do. We should not worry about judges and 
just pass the appropriations bill for foreign operations. We are just 
too busy to do this.
  We have a chart that shows how many judges have been put up per 
hearing before the Judiciary Committee. This chart is revealing. In 
1998, judicial nominees per hearing averaged 4.2; in 1999, 4.2; in 
2000, 4.2. That is 4.2 judges up each time we had a hearing. In 2001, 
that number has dropped. There has been some dispute about it, but 
there is no dispute that it is half what it was before.
  One of the things happening is, when we have a hearing, we are not 
putting as many judges on the panel. We can do three, four, five, six 
at one time, if we want to. We can all be able to ask them questions if 
we want to. But if you hold the number of judges per hearing down, you 
are not moving many judges forward. That is a critical event that has 
gotten us as far behind in the scale as we are today.
  Again, I know a lot has happened this year. Perhaps there is some 
basis for the complaint, the excuse, or the reason we have not moved 
forward is that a lot of things have happened. But if we were just to 
get our hearings moving, we would not be in this crisis. We have been 
warning on our side that this was happening. We have been asking in a 
respectful way and received little or no attention to the matter.
  I believe our complaint is legitimate. I believe it is our duty to 
ask the majority leader and the chairman of the judiciary to reevaluate 
what they are doing, to sit down and plan some hearings for these 
judges and give us a commitment that they are going to move

[[Page 19842]]

forward. If we don't, we will end up when we recess--and maybe we will 
recess earlier than normal this year; many hope so--without moving 
anything like the number of judges that we should.
  It has been stated that a substantial portion of the judicial 
nominees pending in committee do not have all their paperwork 
completed. However, almost 30 have everything in, including their ABA 
rating, and there is no reason for us not to move on those.
  We have at least 30 that have every bit of their paperwork done. We 
haven't been moving those. The President made 18 nominations in May; 11 
of them that have not even had a hearing and their paperwork is in. Why 
is it that we are not able to move effectively?
  Unfortunately, it appears to be consistent with what we learned in 
the New York Times article. At the Democratic retreat they had a 
meeting to plan to change the ground rules for confirmation of judges; 
in effect, to slow the process down, let the vacancies grow, even 
though last year they were saying just the opposite.
  I will share with you some of the comments we had last year. When 
there were 76 vacancies--now we have 108, 109--when there were 76 
vacancies, the now majority leader stated:

       The failure to fill these vacancies is straining our 
     Federal court system and delaying justice for all people 
     across this country.

  That was last year when we had 76 vacancies. Just 2 years ago, when 
the vacancies numbered in the sixties, Senator Leahy, then ranking 
member, now chairman of Judiciary said:

       We must redouble our effort to work with the President to 
     end the longstanding vacancies that plague the Federal courts 
     and disadvantage all Americans. That is our constitutional 
     responsibility.

  Well, the Senate's pace in moving nominations this year is far behind 
the pace during the first years of both Reagan and Bush 1 and the 
Clinton administrations. For example, in the first year of President 
Reagan's administration, there were 40 confirmations to the Federal 
bench. Under former President Bush's administration, there were 15 
confirmations. Under President Clinton's administration, the first 
year, 28 confirmations. At this point, we have confirmed eight, and we 
have maybe a month left in this session. At the rate we are going, we 
are not going to get close to what was a national average of the last 
three administrations of 28 judges in the first year.
  In fact, with regard to the nomination process, in the first year of 
each of those Presidents' administrations, every person who was 
nominated before the August recess was confirmed that first year, 
except one.
  This is a chart that demonstrates that quite clearly. During the 
Reagan administration, all of his nominees who were sent to the Senate 
before the August recess--they gave us a whole month to work on the 
paperwork and review it--every one was confirmed. Under former 
President Bush, the same occurred. Every nominee he sent forward to 
this Senate before the August recess was confirmed. Under President 
Clinton, 93 percent of his were confirmed who were submitted before the 
August recess. Only one of his was not confirmed. Under the now-
President Bush, only 18 percent of his have been confirmed to date.
  So we are just heading on a collision course to a situation that is 
going to leave the courts shorthanded. If we don't recognize it, we are 
acquiescing in what could be a deliberate plan to slow down the 
confirmation of judges, even though last year--less than a year ago--
the people who are involved in that now were decrying that as 
unacceptable; it was unacceptable to keep the confirmations low.
  One more time, let's review these numbers because I don't think 
anyone should think that the reason we are here is light or 
insignificant. The reason we are here talking about these issues is 
that they are important.
  In the 103rd Congress, under President Clinton--and he had a 
Democratic majority in the Judiciary Committee--there were 63 vacancies 
there. In the 104th Congress, 2 years later, at the end of President 
Clinton's first term there were 65 vacancies. In the 105th Congress, 
with Chairman Orrin Hatch's leadership there were 50 vacancies. Senator 
Hatch had reduced vacancies to 50. In the 106th Congress, the last 
years of President Clinton's term, the vacancies were 67, which is, as 
you can see, pretty mainstream. But now we have 110 vacancies without 
an extraordinary game plan in the Judiciary Committee to have hearings 
and move judges forward. At the rate we are going, the resignations are 
going to exceed the nominations and confirmations. That is not a 
healthy thing for our judiciary.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly about the issue. I know there are 
pressures on all of us. We have groups out there that used to try to 
pressure Chairman Hatch and tell him how to run the Judiciary 
Committee. He took the view that: If you want to get elected to the 
Senate, you can run the committee; otherwise, I am going to give 
hearings a fair shot and do what I think is right and move nominees.
  I know pressure is out there. I think it is time for us to get 
serious on this matter, to move nominees forward, give President Bush's 
nominees a fair chance to be confirmed, to reduce this extraordinary 
backlog of vacancies that are out there --to have hearings on those 11 
judges who were nominated in May because they have not even had a 
hearing yet--and get busy with filling our responsibility to advise and 
consent or reject President Bush's nominees.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

                          ____________________