Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Effective Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2012. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. First, this bill seeks to encourage States to adopt a comprehensive approach in using the Federal funds received through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Program. This will help to ensure that their criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. Specifically, the bill reinstates a previous requirement of the Byrne JAG Program that States develop, and update annually, a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. The requirement was removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but groups representing States and victims have requested that it be reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of criminal justice resources. The plan must be formulated in consultation with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system. The Attorney General will also be required to make technical assistance available to help States formulate their strategic plans. This legislation also takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. It was persuasive to me when Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary Committee several years ago when this provision was first considered that competent defense attorneys are critical to a prosecutor's job. Our system requires good lawyers on both sides, and incompetent counsel can result not only in needless and time consuming appeals, but far more importantly, it can lead to wrongful convictions and overall distrust in the criminal process. In working on this legislation, I have also learned that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. I remain committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system operates as effectively and fairly as possible. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Too often the quality of justice a defendant receives in our system depends on whether he or she can pay for an attorney. That is repugnant to the American sense of justice and we must do better. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution for all people. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal and I urge all Senators to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, next week I will probably speak more about this. But looking at tax policy and debt and whatnot--I urge Senators to look at the article written by Walter Pincus in today's Washington Post. The two wars we have been in, Iraq and Afghanistan-- the two longest wars in America's history--are noted not just for their length but for the fact that it is the only time America has gone to war where we have not had a special tax to pay for the war. In fact, it is the only time America has gone to war where we not only have not had a tax to pay for the war but we have ended up with a tax cut, and we ended up trillions of dollars in debt as a result. I hope we will come to the time that we will say--especially with wars of choice, these were not cases where we were attacked that there was a totally unnecessary war in Iraq--totally unnecessary. We went to war in Iraq and said we will put it on our credit card. Of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. A bad guy was running it, but there are a lot of countries we support with bad guys running them. There are $1 trillion and thousands of American lives--tens of thousands of coalition and Iraqi lives--gone, and our children are going to have a $1 trillion bill to pay for it and we got absolutely nothing out of it. We went in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. We got him. We have been stuck there for years--another $1 trillion to beef up a corrupt government, and our children and grandchildren will be given the bill. Then we talk about what else can we do that we will not pay for? We should think about it. Let me speak now about a more positive thing. Agriculture Reform Earlier today, the Senate passed legislation to address one of the most significant legislative issues on our agenda this year--making needed reforms to our Nation's agriculture and food systems. I have been both chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and I think I can say, probably as well as anybody here, how much thanks the U.S. Senate and the country owe to Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts, who did what Senators are supposed to do. They worked together in a bipartisan way to advance the farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. A lot of what people criticize about the Congress today would disappear if everyone acted the way Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan did, and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas did, working across party lines, across ideologies, to try to put together a farm bill that is not a Democratic or Republican farm bill, but a farm bill for the United States of America. I am so proud of them. I mentioned earlier today to Chairwoman Stabenow, I don't know how many times she called me weekends when I was at my home in Vermont, or sent me e-mails late in the evening, because she was trying to keep this coalition going. The work of these leaders and the passage of this bill proves that the Senate can act in accordance with its greatest traditions and we can reach across the aisle to pass critical legislation that reflects compromise. As a former Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and having worked closely with Senator Lugar on many bipartisan Farm Bills, I know how difficult the task can be of forging a comprehensive bill that addresses the many competing needs. I said earlier that Senator Richard Lugar and I traded places back and forth, as either chairman or ranking member on that committee. We passed bipartisan farm bills. We worked closely together, with complete candor and honestness with each other, as one would expect from Senator Lugar. We forged these comprehensive bills. The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of many dedicated, wonderful staffers, mine and others, both here in Washington and back home in Vermont. Being such a large and far reaching bill there were many staff involved throughout its development and final passage. I would like to thank in particular Adrienne Wojciechowski, Michelle Lacko, Aaron Kaigle, Kathryn Toomajian, Kara Leene, Tom Berry, Chris Saunders, Emma Van Susteren, Ted Brady, Lauren Bracket, Nikole Manatt, Greg Cota, Will Goodman, Erica Chabot, and John Dowd from my staff. I would also like to thank both the Chairwoman and Ranking Member's staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee who worked so closely with my office on many different issues and programs including the dairy reforms, conservation consolidation, nutrition, rural development, forestry, food aid, research, organics, energy, and the wonderful improvements we made to the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. It is not easy to get what we have here, a strong bipartisan bill. So I rise to say I hope the House of Representatives will act swiftly to consider legislation that is going to allow us to move to conference. Because just as it was important to the U.S. Senate to get together and pass this bill by an overwhelming majority, the swift passage of this farm bill is essential. The current Farm Bill expires at the end of September. Before August 31, we must address the serious problem of dairy policy or our dairy farmers will be left without a vital safety net. Dairy is a crucial industry in Vermont. I hear often from dairy farmers who are worried about the dangerous rollercoaster of price swings that impacts both producers and consumers. This is a roller coaster we have been on in dairy pricing in Vermont since January of 2000. How can any farmer stay in business if this is the way their prices go? How can they plan to buy new equipment? How can they plan to send their children to school? How can they plan to modernize their farm if they never know what day the price will be up, what day prices will be down? I hear too often from dairy farmers who meet with me or talk to me when I am at the grocery store in Vermont, or just walking down the street. They tell me they are worried about the dangerous roller coaster of prices. These swings impact both consumers and the producers. For our farmers in Vermont, the dairy reforms included in the 2012 farm bill will bring some relief. We simply must free our dairy farmers from this destructive cycle of volatile price changes. The current Federal safety net provides no protection for dairy farmers from this roller coaster of price volatility. The 2009 dairy crisis brought plummeting milk prices and sky-high feed costs that combined to devastate dairy farmers in ways that many were unable to recover from. Many had to close down. Let's stop the roller coaster. Let's give stability to the hard-working men and women who are dairy farmers. Dairy farmers have come together to identify ways to move us away from the regional dairy fights and the constant policy conflicts between small and large farms. The results are the changes included in the 2012 Farm Bill, which will help farmers and consumers move away from these volatile price swings. Now we will have some protection. The 2012 Farm Bill scraps outdated price supports and the Milk Income Loss Contract Program. It establishes a new risk management plan that protects farm income when margins shrink dangerously, and a stabilization program to allow farmers to take a proactive role in easing the instability in our dairy markets. And it accomplishes this at a lower cost than the current program that it replaces while contributing to the savings to this bill. It is a voluntary program, and can be tailored by the farmer to fit their individual needs. Dairy is Vermont's largest agricultural commodity. Dairy products account for upward of 83 percent--or 90 percent depending on market prices--of Vermont's agricultural products sales. I am proud the dairy farmers of Vermont have had a voice in developing this farm bill, and enacting it is going to bring long-needed relief to the industry. I hope that the House can now come together in a bipartisan way, just as we did in the Senate, to quickly pass a bipartisan Farm Bill. Republicans and Democrats alike came together in this body, so surely it can be done. We know the impact of this legislation goes well beyond our farms and forests to our economy, our families, and our kitchen tables.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont boasts many gems that draw visitors to our Green Mountains. Among them is Shelburne Farms, known to many Vermonters--and many visitors to Vermont--for its work on historic preservation, agriculture, sustainability, and nutrition. And so it was with great interest and appreciation that I read an article about the Farm's caretakers in the Burlington Free Press. I have been proud of the work Alec Webb and his wife, Megan Camp, have done at Shelburne Farms for the last many years. Through their leadership, Shelburne Farms has become a first-rate educational hub, promoting environmental conservation, food education and agriculture sustainability. The partnerships initiated by Alec and Megan with the National Park Service Conservation Studies Institute and with the University of Vermont Center for Sustainable Agriculture have furthered these goals. Today, Shelburne Farms is a National Historic Landmark, a distinction I was proud to help secure in 2001 because they earned it. During this week's debate on the Farm Bill, I think it is fitting to highlight the important work being done at Shelburne Farms. Others can take a page from their successful playbook as we explore ways to bolster our green economy, put food on Americans' tables, and promote the environmental stewardship that continues to protect our farm lands and environment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article, ``A Vision Realized,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Effective Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2012. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. First, this bill seeks to encourage States to adopt a comprehensive approach in using the Federal funds received through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Program. This will help to ensure that their criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. Specifically, the bill reinstates a previous requirement of the Byrne JAG Program that States develop, and update annually, a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. The requirement was removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but groups representing States and victims have requested that it be reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of criminal justice resources. The plan must be formulated in consultation with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system. The Attorney General will also be required to make technical assistance available to help States formulate their strategic plans. This legislation also takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. It was persuasive to me when Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary Committee several years ago when this provision was first considered that competent defense attorneys are critical to a prosecutor's job. Our system requires good lawyers on both sides, and incompetent counsel can result not only in needless and time consuming appeals, but far more importantly, it can lead to wrongful convictions and overall distrust in the criminal process. In working on this legislation, I have also learned that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. I remain committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system operates as effectively and fairly as possible. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Too often the quality of justice a defendant receives in our system depends on whether he or she can pay for an attorney. That is repugnant to the American sense of justice and we must do better. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution for all people. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal and I urge all Senators to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate will vote today on whether to proceed to a congressional resolution of disapproval that I strongly oppose. This resolution would repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards rule and undo the great strides the Agency has taken to safeguard the public's health and welfare and our quality of life in this great land. The EPA's mercury and air toxics standards represent a true breakthrough in environmental policy. This rule offers clear benefits to every American, and it is especially important to Vermonters, who disproportionally suffer from the devastating effects of mercury and other toxic air pollutants. Although my home State has no major sources of mercury, Vermonters have been besieged by this insidious poison, which drifts across our borders from other States. The EPA estimates that each year, toxic air pollutants cause up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma, among other illnesses. Mercury, a truly unwelcome addition to our daily lives, has had catastrophic effects on the health and well-being of all Americans, as well as a ruinous impact on our Nation's pristine natural environment. There is no known safe level of exposure to mercury it is harmful to humans in even the smallest amounts. Tragically, mercury's most devastating effect is on those victims least able to protect themselves: unborn and newborn children. Mercury has been shown to cause developmental disabilities and brain damage, resulting in lowered IQ's and learning problems, such as attention deficit disorder. Sadly, these affects are permanent and irreversible. They lead to a lifetime of trips to the emergency room, costly medical interventions, personal and family heartbreak, and lost potential. The American people want their air and water to be cleaner and healthier and most certainly free of toxic pollutants. Vermonters and Americans want this for all of us. Safe water and safe air to breathe should be a valued legacy of our lives in this blessed Nation. We also know that protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society is among Congress's most solemn duties. This resolution of disapproval undermines that goal. Why should one more child struggle to breathe and gasp for air when such suffering is preventable? Why should one more parent die a premature death? Congress should not meddle in this vitally important issue literally, for many, an issue of life or death or chronic illness. If the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards are repealed, the simple reality is that it will be somebody's loved one who pays the price, and the price they pay may be irreversible. During the Bush administration, I offered my own Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval, known as the Leahy-Collins resolution, to contest an EPA mercury rule that was far too weak and failed to protect the American people. It is hard to believe that now, almost 7 years later, this issue is still unresolved and we are fighting to save an EPA rule that is fair, just, science-based, and reasonable. A sound environmental policy that protects our citizens from the hazards of mercury and air toxics is long overdue. In addition to the numerous health benefits that removing these toxics would mean for our citizens, both young and old, the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards would protect America's precious waterways, making them accessible to the sport fishermen of today and for countless generations to come. Today, large game fish from every body of water in Vermont, including our State's greatest lake, Lake Champlain, are so heavily contaminated with out-of-State mercury that people must be warned against eating them. In fact, all 50 States have issued fish consumption advisories, warning citizens to limit how often they eat certain types of fish because they are contaminated with mercury. Let me repeat that. Because of mercury contamination, every State of our great Nation today warns its citizens to limit how often they should consume certain kinds of fish. We can change that. We should change that. We must change that. Environmental standards can and have made tremendous differences in our lifetimes in virtually eliminating such toxics as the fumes from the burning of leaded gasoline, which only recently was ubiquitous on our streets and around our homes. We must do the same to begin ridding poisonous mercury from our air and water. Without these standards, powerplants will continue to spew tons of mercury and other toxic air pollutants into the air. Without these standards, this preventable, slow-motion tragedy will continue to unfold despite the fact that the pollution control technology mandated by this rule is already widely available, affordable, and in use in many coal-fired powerplants throughout the Nation. Thirty-three percent of older powerplants have already installed lifesaving technology which allows them to comply with the EPA's emission limits, and a full 60 percent already comply with the EPA's mercury limit. This resolution of disapproval would be especially ill-advised because it would unjustly punish companies that have taken steps to do the right thing, while rewarding those that have shirked their responsibilities, endangered countless lives, and imperiled the environment. As another great benefit to the American people, industry-wide adoption of innovative pollution control technology would stimulate investment in the economy, job creation and greater productivity. The updated standards will create thousands of long-term jobs for American workers. These workers will be hired to build, install, and, ultimately, operate the machinery that will reduce health-threatening emissions. The EPA estimates that implementing this rule will mean jobs for tens of thousands of hard-working Americans, including 46,000 construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs. When added onto the health benefits, these standards will have an annual estimated benefit of $37 to $90 billion dollars. Green jobs are not just good for the environment in which we live, work, and breathe, they are good for the economy and good for America. I hope that when Senators consider this resolution of disapproval, they remember that its passage would prevent the EPA from issuing any standards in the future that were substantially similar to the current mercury and air toxics standards. As a result, Americans would continue to be put at risk from the debilitating and sometimes deadly effects of air pollution pumped into America's air by energy companies and other sources. Regrettably, this threat to human health and the environment would continue indefinitely because the resolution of disapproval would strip the EPA of essential tools to address these hazards. The value of these tools is as incalculable as the value of human life and the health of our families. Make no mistake about it: Investing in the new technology mandated by the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards will save countless lives and will improve the quality of the environment of our communities for years to come. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to future generations of Americans to make this investment now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2354

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Lee amendment to repeal the Forest Legacy Program, and urge all Senators to do the same. For more than two decades, this program has led to the conservation of over 2.2 million acres of working forest lands in 49 states. The National Association of Forest Owners estimates that U.S. forests support more than 2.9 million jobs and contribute $115 billion towards the gross domestic product. Better still, the Forest Legacy Program does not use taxpayer dollars for Federal funds, but instead relies on a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. The benefits of this program far outweigh any cost to the taxpayer, a claim that cannot be made by many other Federal programs. Repealing this program would be a tragic mistake, especially at a time when the Nation's forests are under attack from real estate development and urban sprawl, among other enemies. The U.S. is projected to lose up to 75 million acres of forest over the next half century. As forest areas are fragmented and disappear, so too do the benefits they provide. This program is essential to protect these benefits and ensure that we have a healthy environment and strong rural economies in the future. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge all Senators to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2204.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. This amendment will reestablish authorization for National Rural Development Partnerships--renamed State Rural Development Partnerships--in the 2012 farm bill. Reauthorization of these effective and efficient councils will allow them to continue their important work of strengthening rural communities in Vermont and across the country. This reauthorization would recognize the State councils' on-the- ground leadership in rural communities, and allow them to continue their vital work. I would note that this amendment does not cost a single farm bill dollar; it would merely maintain the States' statutory authority to establish these State-run rural development councils. I urge all Senators to support this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Like New Hampshire, Vermont is one of the most forested States in the country. Even farms with a significant amount of open space tend to have significant forested acreage and both are feeling tremendous development pressures. While many agricultural producers in my state would like to purchase easements to keep their lands working, a 2008 Natural Resource Conservation Service rule prohibited the agency from protecting tracts with more than two-thirds of their acres under forest cover. This rule has hampered conservation efforts in Vermont. Has it had a similar effect in Michigan?

Mr. LEAHY. I completely agree. We need to ensure that Federal programs are carried out in a manner that ensures we keep as much agricultural land in working production as we possibly can. In Vermont, our forests are an important part of that agricultural landscape, especially with our maple syrup producers who depend on these productive and working forestlands. According to USDA, the Northeast and many other heavily forested regions of the country have experienced long-term declines in cropland and forestland use as a result of urban pressures.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Frances Williams Preston, a trailblazing businesswoman, a dedicated humanitarian, a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, and a friend. I was saddened when she passed away on June 13. Frances began her career as a receptionist at a radio station in Nashville, TN. She quickly moved up within the music community, and in 1958 she was hired to open a regional office for Broadcast Music Inc., BMI, in Nashville, representing songwriters and composers. Glass ceilings had no chance at constraining Frances. In 1964, she became Vice President of BMI, reportedly making her the first woman corporate executive in Tennessee. In 1986, she became CEO and remained CEO of BMI until 2004. Her work at BMI transformed not only the company, but also the hundreds of thousands of songwriters and composers BMI represents. She tripled the revenues at BMI and advocated for strong copyright protections to benefit artists. BMI under her tenure also helped the city of Nashville to blossom into the leading center for songwriters and the arts that it is today. Frances's dedication to the songwriters and her industry, and her passion for ensuring they could make a living in their chosen profession, was unrivaled. Kris Kristofferson famously dubbed her the ``songwriter's guardian angel.'' I worked closely with Frances and the songwriting community to ensure that the rights of composers are protected, but I will remember her most for her humanitarian efforts. She was president of the T.J. Martell Foundation for Leukemia, Cancer and AIDS research, and her name precedes the research laboratories at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. I could go on at length about the various music and humanitarian awards and honors Frances has received, from being inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1992 to twice receiving the Humanitarian Award from the International Achievement in Arts. The current president of BMI probably best captured her essence by simply describing Frances as ``a force of nature.'' She will be missed by those who knew her, and remembered always by those whom she nurtured as songwriters and composers. The music industry has lost a legend and I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article ``From Receptionist to Music-Royalty Guarantor'' by Stephen Miller be entered into the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Franken to introduce the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2012. This important legislation will respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and restore women's ability to challenge discrimination in the workplace. Today marks the 1 year anniversary of that case--where just five Justices disqualified the claims of 1.5 million women who had spent nearly a decade seeking justice for sex discrimination by their employer, Wal-Mart. By a 5 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the women did not share enough in common to support bringing a class action. Perhaps more troubling, just five Justices said that Wal-Mart could not have had a discriminatory policy against all of them, because it left its payment decisions to the local branches of its stores. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court provided a clear path for corporations to avoid company-wide sex discrimination suits, and made it harder to hold corporations accountable under our historic civil rights laws. Betty Dukes has worked for Wal-Mart, where she started as a part-time cashier in Pittsburg, California, for almost 20 years. Throughout her years at Wal-Mart, Betty expressed an interest in advancement and in the management track. Unfortunately, she was continually overlooked for promotions, receiving only one in her lengthy career there. Betty Dukes then learned of the pay disparities between the male and female employees at a Pittsburg Wal-Mart store. She decided to take a stand, and filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in 2001. Betty Dukes and the other women were appalled to learn that the pay disparities did not stop at the Pittsburg store. In fact, there was widespread gender discrimination occurring at Wal-Mart stores across the country. Last year, I chaired a hearing on how Supreme Court rulings affect Americans' access to their courts. Betty Dukes came and shared her story at that hearing. She made it clear that she did not plan on giving up. In these tough economic times, American consumers and employees rely on the law to protect them from fraud and discrimination. They rely on the courts to enforce laws intended to protect them. Unfortunately, these protections are being eroded by what appears to be the most business-friendly Supreme Court in the last 75 years. The Supreme Court's recent decisions make some wonder whether it has now decided that some corporations are too big to be held accountable. Whether it is Lilly Ledbetter suing her employer for gender discrimination, or a group of consumers suing their phone company for deceptive practices, an activist majority of the Supreme Court is making it more and more difficult for Americans to have their day in court. We cannot ignore the fact that gender discrimination in the workplace persists. Earlier this month, I urged the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would have set a clear path to address the systemic problems that result from pay disparities. Unfortunately, the Senate could not overcome a partisan filibuster, and was not able to even debate the measure. I believe that the ability of Americans to band together to hold corporations accountable, especially when it comes to workplace discrimination, has been seriously undermined by the Supreme Court. All people should be evaluated on the basis of their contribution to the workplace, not irrelevant factors like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, or disability. These decisions have been praised on Wall Street, but will no doubt hurt hardworking Americans on Main Street. I thank Senator Franken for introducing this important bill, and urge all Senators to come together and support this effort to restore hardworking Americans' access to their courts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Franken to introduce the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2012. This important legislation will respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and restore women's ability to challenge discrimination in the workplace. Today marks the 1 year anniversary of that case--where just five Justices disqualified the claims of 1.5 million women who had spent nearly a decade seeking justice for sex discrimination by their employer, Wal-Mart. By a 5 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the women did not share enough in common to support bringing a class action. Perhaps more troubling, just five Justices said that Wal-Mart could not have had a discriminatory policy against all of them, because it left its payment decisions to the local branches of its stores. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court provided a clear path for corporations to avoid company-wide sex discrimination suits, and made it harder to hold corporations accountable under our historic civil rights laws. Betty Dukes has worked for Wal-Mart, where she started as a part-time cashier in Pittsburg, California, for almost 20 years. Throughout her years at Wal-Mart, Betty expressed an interest in advancement and in the management track. Unfortunately, she was continually overlooked for promotions, receiving only one in her lengthy career there. Betty Dukes then learned of the pay disparities between the male and female employees at a Pittsburg Wal-Mart store. She decided to take a stand, and filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in 2001. Betty Dukes and the other women were appalled to learn that the pay disparities did not stop at the Pittsburg store. In fact, there was widespread gender discrimination occurring at Wal-Mart stores across the country. Last year, I chaired a hearing on how Supreme Court rulings affect Americans' access to their courts. Betty Dukes came and shared her story at that hearing. She made it clear that she did not plan on giving up. In these tough economic times, American consumers and employees rely on the law to protect them from fraud and discrimination. They rely on the courts to enforce laws intended to protect them. Unfortunately, these protections are being eroded by what appears to be the most business-friendly Supreme Court in the last 75 years. The Supreme Court's recent decisions make some wonder whether it has now decided that some corporations are too big to be held accountable. Whether it is Lilly Ledbetter suing her employer for gender discrimination, or a group of consumers suing their phone company for deceptive practices, an activist majority of the Supreme Court is making it more and more difficult for Americans to have their day in court. We cannot ignore the fact that gender discrimination in the workplace persists. Earlier this month, I urged the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would have set a clear path to address the systemic problems that result from pay disparities. Unfortunately, the Senate could not overcome a partisan filibuster, and was not able to even debate the measure. I believe that the ability of Americans to band together to hold corporations accountable, especially when it comes to workplace discrimination, has been seriously undermined by the Supreme Court. All people should be evaluated on the basis of their contribution to the workplace, not irrelevant factors like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, or disability. These decisions have been praised on Wall Street, but will no doubt hurt hardworking Americans on Main Street. I thank Senator Franken for introducing this important bill, and urge all Senators to come together and support this effort to restore hardworking Americans' access to their courts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for agreeing to this resolution celebrating the 150th anniversary of the signing of the First Morrill Act. The Morrill Act, named for its author, Justin Morrill of Strafford, VT, granted public lands to States and territories to support colleges in promoting education as a means of economic advancement and intellectual pursuit. This landmark legislation brought national attention to public higher education in the United States and made higher education accessible to the public by granting Federal land to each State to be used toward funding public agriculture colleges. It is difficult to overstate the profound impact and ways in which the core democratic vision behind the Morrill Act has improved the lives of Americans. Land grant institutions have opened the doors to affordable and accessible higher education for millions of students. These public institutions are the lifeblood of many communities, serving as hubs of research and innovation, as drivers of economic growth, and as laboratories for critical thinking and public debate. The University of Vermont is the State of Vermont's land-grant university. It is fitting that representatives from the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple Research Center will be in town next weekend for the Smithsonian's 2012 Folklife Festival. This year, the annual event celebrates the spirit of the Morrill Act and the cultural impact of land-grant institutions. Timothy Perkins, Timothy Wilmont, Emily Drew, George Cook, and Brian Stowe will host a booth at the Festival on the maple industry and how maple research at the University of Vermont has provided new and improved techniques for efficient sap collection and evaporation systems which yield higher quality maple syrup, as well as research to improve understanding of the physiology and continued health of sugar maple trees. Just one example is a revolutionary maple tap developed by students and professors at UVM and now being manufactured in Vermont which nearly doubles the yield from each tree. Justin Morrill's vision for a modern higher education infrastructure was centered in creating an opportunity for farmers, mechanics, artisans and laborers who too often lacked access to higher education. While time does not allow a comprehensive look at the contributions of UVM to the State of Vermont, I will note that given the focus of land grant institutions on agriculture, it is very appropriate that the UVM College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as CALS, is quartered in the original Morrill Hall at the center of campus. In addition to work on maple, CALS provides a number of world-class research and outreach efforts that are educating a generation of leaders in sustainable agriculture and food systems. And the acorn often falls close to the tree--with UVM graduates applying their skills to start businesses and nonprofits in Vermont. CALS graduates are owners and herd managers at dairy farms across Vermont and others are operating a growing number of diversified farms and CSA's across the region. Two examples are Shelburne Farms, a wonderful center for sustainability education and Vermont Natural Coatings--a private company manufacturing environmentally friendly paints--both being run by UVM alumni. Nutrition research at the school is informing cutting edge farm-to- school programs. Students and researchers at the UVM School of Natural resources have been at the lead for many years in understanding and addressing water quality problems in Lake Champlain. Preparing students with a great basic education in environmental science and policy, these young people are then deployed to the UVM research vessel the Melosira, to the Rubenstein Lake Research Lab, and to watershed groups to put their skills to the test. It is not unusual to see UVM undergraduates coming off the lake, cold and wet on a cold fall day and burdened with nets, buckets, and boots--and smiling from ear to ear. Vermont is a small State and could never have built such a fine and world-renowned research University but for the Morrill Land Grant Act. UVM is now an engine that helps to drive our state, and to benefit the Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Toomey amendment, which would completely eliminate funding for the organic certification cost-share assistance, risk management education, and agricultural management assistance. These programs are highly effective and have helped farmers across the entire country, which is why they have widespread bipartisan support. They ensure that all producers have equal access to the organic certification process, support sustainable farm practices, and help disseminate information about the intricate crop insurance system to those who traditionally have not had access. The farm bill is about fairness, equity, job growth, and protecting farmers eliminating these vital programs runs counter to these fundamental goals. The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program and the Agricultural Management Assistance program have proven to be highly cost-effective tools for farmers. With grants of up to $750, they allow organic producers and handlers to defray a portion of their rising organic certification costs. These small grants help the many producers who already follow organic practices complete the costly certification process. In fiscal year 2011 alone, over 9,300 operations in 49 states received assistance through these 2 programs. Demand from the marketplace has fueled the skyrocketing production of organic food. This food frequently yields higher prices for producers and gives consumers greater choice. Many small producers who often sell their goods directly to consumers--have trouble obtaining organic certification, which is the last hurdle that must be overcome to access these valuable markets. The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program brings equity to the system and enables producers to properly label their goods. This ensures that consumers can find American organic products and rest assured that they have been produced according to organic standards. The Agricultural Management Assistance, AMA, program also helps producers make the conservation improvements that they would like to make--such as water quality and erosion controls. This program is completely voluntary and helps farmers in states where participation in Federal Crop Insurance has remained low. Agricultural Management Assistance helps farmers develop sustainable practices that protect their farmland and ensure the health of our shared water systems. This is the type of program that pays long-term dividends and greatly reduces future mitigation costs for our Nation's farmers. Last year Tropical Storm Irene devastated the landscape in Vermont, eroding soil and spreading contaminants into our water system. Fertile soil was wiped away leaving only bedrock behind. To the extent we can, we should try to lessen the toll of natural disasters like Irene by implementing the conservation practices that AMA supports. Eliminating programs like AMA kicks the can down the road, increasing the size and impact of problems that our children and grandchildren will be left to fix. I urge all Senators to stand with our farmers and oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, Senate Republicans announced they are going to shut down and block the confirmation process for qualified and consensus circuit nominees for the rest of the year. That is unfortunate, and it does nothing to help the American people or our courts. The courts continue to be overburdened while consensus nominees for vacancies that could be filled are being stalled. In some cases for nominees, we have two Republican Senators from the State supporting them and others where we have a Democratic and Republican Senator supporting them. They have gone through our committee--usually by voice vote--and they are noncontroversial. I have often spoken during the last three years of the foot dragging and obstruction by Senate Republicans with respect to this President's judicial nominations. Just last week we saw the Majority Leader file the 28th cloture petition to end another filibuster against another qualified judicial nominee. Last week it was a nominee from Arizona supported by Senator Kyl and Senator McCain. By their announcement, the Senate Republican leadership is saying that it will not agree to proceeding with debate and a vote on any of the four circuit court nominees voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They include a nominee from Maine strongly supported by both Republican Senators from Maine, and a nominee from Oklahoma supported by the Republican Senators from that state, as well as a nominee from New Jersey and one for the Federal Circuit who was approved by all of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, except for an unrelated protest vote. This plan to shut down the confirmation process is consistent with what the partisan Senate Republican leadership did in 1996, when it would not allow any circuit nominees to be confirmed, and again at the end of President Clinton's presidency, and can be contrasted with how Democrats acted in 1992, 2004 and 2008. This is really a challenge to the Senators who have said that they will not support these filibusters and this kind of obstruction. It is hard to see how this new application of the Thurmond rule is anything more than another name for the stalling tactics we have already seen for months and years. I have yet to hear any good reason why we should not continue to vote on well-qualified consensus nominees, as we did up until September of the last two Presidential election years when we had a Republican President. That was supported by both Democrats and Republicans--to vote up through September. I have yet to hear a good explanation why we can't work to solve the problems of high vacancies for the American people. I will continue to work with the Senate leadership to try to confirm as many of President Obama's qualified judicial nominees as possible because I hear from judges all over the country how these judicial vacancies are burdening our courts, and American taxpayers are unable to get a court to hear their cases. I was heartened to see the senior Senator from Maine has said she will continue to work with the bipartisan Senate leadership in an effort to bring the Maine nominee to the First Circuit before the Senate for a confirmation vote. I trust that many Republican Senators who joined Senator Kyl and Senator McCain in opposing the filibuster of Justice Hurwitz will now join to oppose the filibusters of William Kayatta of Maine, Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, Judge Shwartz of New Jersey, and Richard Taranto for the Federal Circuit. I hope the Senators from South Carolina, whose State's nominee we consider today, will aid this effort just as we worked with them throughout the process to ensure they were consulted by the President. In fact, I personally requested the President consult with Republican Senators when they were going to have a nominee from their home State. I hope they are going to show that same courtesy to other Senators. Senate Republicans were talking about shutting down the confirmation process from the beginning of this year, as I chronicled in my statement on February 7 on their obstruction and delay. They slow walked nominees who should have been confirmed last year into May of this year. And now, one month later, they announce that they are closing the gates on progress. The article by John Stanton in Roll Call on June 14 blew the whistle on their plan. The banner headline notes the ``GOP . . . Judge Blockade'' but it is not just beginning. It began from the moment the President was elected. I think this pattern of obstruction--and I say this more out of sadness than anything else--has been as transparent as the Senate Republican leader's statement that ``the single most important thing [Senate Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.'' Just as they obstruct his qualified judicial nominees, they have also rejected virtually every effort this President has made to improve the economy and create jobs. They have become the party of no--no help for the American people, no to jobs, no to economic recovery, no to police, firefighters, and teachers, no to those students who are seeking help to pay for education, no to consumer protection, no to assisting State and local governments, no to the highway bill, and no to any more judges. Never mind that the American people rely on our courts for justice and that the courts are overburdened with vacancies and that we have 17 judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee waiting for Senate confirmation. The idea that Senate Republicans would oppose a proposal, bill or nomination simply because it comes from this President is sadly no surprise. Republicans objected to extending the payroll tax cut even though they ultimately supported it. Republicans have also come to reject ideas and proposals that originated from their own party simply because this President supports them. This was the case with the individual mandate for healthcare, which was a Republican idea. So it should come as no surprise that Republicans have been obstructing President Obama's judicial nominees since the President first took office. Regrettably, the obstruction of judicial nominations is just one more example of Republicans saying no or simply going slow. They are saying no to the police, firefighters, teachers, students, consumer protection, and to those 50 States that want to go forward with highway bills. I hear from Vermonters--Republicans and Democrats alike--and they cannot wait while politics trump sound policy efforts in Washington. It is time for a reality check. While our economy is showing some signs of progress since the economic collapse four years ago, there is no doubt domestic job growth has not been as strong as we had hoped. Even though we have under 5 percent unemployment in Vermont, we still have too many Vermonters looking for work. We have to continue looking for ways to spur job growth and economic investment in this country. Unfortunately, efforts in Congress to increase jobs, reduce unemployment, and support hardworking American families struggling to keep food on their tables and roofs over their heads meet with partisan obstruction too. While Congress delays, the clock is ticking down for the millions of Americans struggling to afford college and those struggling to pay back student loans once they have graduated. In less than two weeks, student loan interest rates will double, threatening to make student loan debt an almost insurmountable obstacle to accessing a college education. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster commonsense legislation to address this looming deadline. In less than 2 weeks, millions of jobs will be put on hold when critical transportation programs, including funding for the highway trust fund, expire. Failing to pass a long-term transportation bill jeopardizes thousands of construction and development projects, impacting millions of jobs in every single State in this country. These programs impact every one of our states--which means more jobs lost in an already weak economy. The Senate has passed a bill to bring certainty to this fund for two years. We are still waiting for the House Republican leadership to act on that legislation. In a little over 1 month, important legislation to extend the National Flood Insurance Program will expire. The failure to reauthorize this important program puts at risk the sale of thousands of homes at a time when our housing market is still trying to recover. The program expired in 2008, and subsists now on a series of short term extensions. A five-year extension is pending before Congress; Senate Republicans have delayed consideration of that important legislation, too. Meanwhile, in this election year, Republicans in Congress are more intent on extending the Bush-era tax cuts that contributed to the financial crisis facing us today than in working together to move forward with reasonable policies to bolster economic growth and development. Extending to the wealthiest Americans a lower tax rate will not lead to job creation. These tax cuts have not led to job creation. Meanwhile, businesses continue to shutter their doors, costing communities jobs and economic development. I know I raised the question at the time when Congress voted to go to war in Iraq--a war I voted against--that they were going to do it by borrowing the money, the same in Afghanistan. Never before in this Nation have we gone to war and borrowed the money. We have had a tax to pay for it. So we lose $1 trillion in Iraq and at least $\1/2\ trillion so far in Afghanistan. If we want to cast partisan politics aside and have a consensus on meaningful jobs and job preservation legislation, we can do so. We have shown how to do it. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is one of the best examples of laws enacted in this Congress to promote our American economy and create American jobs. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and I in the Senate brought together Republicans and Democrats in both bodies, and we passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Unfortunately, it was only one of the few job-creating bills enacted in this Congress. The outlook this Congress need not be gloom and doom. Working together, we can enact meaningful legislation to close the loopholes that incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. We can bolster the middle class, rather than the wealthiest one percent of Americans, by promoting job creation through small business development. We can ensure that students graduating from school are not saddled with student loans, the interest rates on which are simply too high to afford. We can do all this, today. I am disheartened that the Republican leaders in Congress have said they are simply done legislating for the year. The reality check is that Vermonters and other Americans of all States cannot wait. President Obama has signaled his commitment to moving forward with job- creating legislation to get Americans back to work and to protect America's leadership in the global marketplace. We should move on that. Let the two candidates for President argue, let them state their positions, and let the voters decide which one they want to vote for. In the meantime, when we have legislation to put Americans to work, let's put politics aside and focus on the right policies, on the needs of the American people. All of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--should act on behalf of the people who sent us. It is past time for that work to begin. Shutting down judicial confirmations makes no sense when the judicial vacancy rate remains almost twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. Senate Republicans were successful in keeping it near or above 80 for three years. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal courts is currently vacant. As a current report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirms, not a single one of the last three presidents has had judicial vacancies increase after their first term. President Obama will likely be the first given partisan obstruction. The same recent CRS report notes that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican foot dragging and obstruction. Last year Senate Republicans again refused to act on 19 judicial nominees and delayed consideration of those nominations an extra year. Three of the five circuit court judges finally confirmed this year after months of unnecessary delays and a filibuster should have been confirmed last year. The other two circuit court nominees confirmed this year were both subjected to stalling and a partisan filibuster by Senate Republicans. So when I hear some Senate Republicans say they are invoking the Thurmond Rule and have decided they are not going to allow President Obama's judicial nominees to be considered, I wonder how the American people can tell the difference. There are longstanding vacancies with nominees ready to fill them that Republicans are delaying unnecessarily for months. How do we tell the difference between the Republican obstruction--that was signaled when they filibustered President Obama's very first circuit court nominee, a nomination supported by the longest-serving Republican in the Senate and the nominee's home state Senator--and this new application of the Thurmond Rule? Last week we needed to overcome a filibuster to confirm Justice Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit despite the strong support of his home state Senators, Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain. Last month the Majority Leader had to file cloture to secure an up-or-down vote on Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support. The year started with the Majority Leader having to file for cloture to get an up-or-down vote on Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit even though he was strongly supported by his Republican home state Senator. Every single one of these nominees for whom the Majority Leader was forced to file cloture was rated unanimously well qualified by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating. And every one of them was nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. Did Republicans secretly invoke the Thurmond Rule before this year even started, when they departed from the Senate's traditional practice and would not consent to confirm 19 judicial nominees that were on the calendar at the end of last year? Up until last month, we were considering nominees that could and should have been confirmed last year. Given that we have only confirmed eight judicial nominees that were reported by the Committee this year and only two of them circuit court nominees it seems oddly premature to declare an artificial cut- off of confirmations when our work this year has only just begun. Among those now being blockaded are nominees waiting since March of this year. So by delaying last year's nominees until May, Senate Republicans effectively prevented consideration of the Shwartz, Taranto and Kayatta nominations for months after being voted out of the Judiciary Committee. The Senate Republican leadership is not shutting off circuit nominees just after June 12, they are blocking nominees ready for consideration since early March of this year. In 2004, a Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed five circuit court nominees of a Republican President that had been reported by the Committee that year. This year we have confirmed only two circuit court nominees that have been reported by the Committee this year, and both were filibustered. By this date in 2004 the Senate had already confirmed 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees, and we confirmed another three that year for a total of 35 circuit court nominees in his first term. So far, the Senate has only been allowed to consider and confirm 30 of President Obama's circuit court nominees five fewer, 17 percent fewer while higher numbers of vacancies remain, and yet the Senate Republican leadership wants to artificially shut off nominations with no good reason. There is no reason that the Senate could not vote on consensus circuit court nominees thoroughly vetted, considered and voted on by the Judiciary Committee. There is no reason the Senate cannot vote on the nomination of William Kayatta of Maine to the First Circuit, a nominee strongly supported by both of Maine's Republican Senators and reported nearly unanimously by the Committee two months ago. There is no reason the Senate cannot vote on the nomination of Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit, who was supported by Senator Coburn during Committee consideration. Senator Coburn said that Judge Bacharach would make a great nominee for a Republican president. So why is the Republican leadership playing politics with his nomination? There is also no reason the Senate cannot vote on Richard Taranto's nomination to the Federal Circuit. He was reported almost unanimously by voice vote nearly three months ago, and was supported by conservatives such as Robert Bork and Paul Clement. The Federal Circuit has never been controversial before. The one circuit court nominee who was reported out of Committee with a split roll call vote Judge Shwartz of New Jersey should not have been controversial, as seen by the bipartisan support she has received from New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie. Every circuit court nominee that Senate Republicans currently refuse to consent to vote on have been rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating. These are not controversial nominees. They are qualified and should be considered as consensus nominees and confirmed. By invoking the Thurmond Rule, Senate Republicans are blocking consent to vote on superbly qualified circuit court nominees with strong bipartisan support. This is a new and damaging application of the Thurmond Rule. Senate tradition has been that in Presidential election years, nominees receive a vote unless they do not have bipartisan support. In the past five presidential election years, Senate Democrats have never denied an up or down vote to any circuit court nominee of a Republican president who received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. In fact, during the last 20 years, only four circuit nominees reported with bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote by the Senate and all four were nominated by President Clinton and blocked by Senate Republicans. While Senate Democrats have been willing to work with Republican presidents to confirm circuit court nominees with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed the nominees of Democratic presidents. In the previous five presidential election years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees have been confirmed after June 1. Not surprisingly, 12 of the 13 were Republican nominees. Clearly, this is not tit-for-tat as some contend but, rather, a one way street in favor of Republican presidents' nominees. The precedent for this decision by Senate Republican Leadership to shutdown the confirmation process for well-qualified consensus nominees is their prior actions obstructing President Clinton's nominees. Senator Schumer held a Judiciary Committee hearing in May 2002 to shed light on the harmful and damaging practice of stalling and obstructing qualified, consensus nominees that had occurred during the last years of the Clinton administration. Of course, there was the nomination of Bonnie Campbell of Iowa to the Eighth Circuit. Ms. Campbell was the first woman ever elected to be Attorney General of Iowa. She was also once named by Time Magazine as one of the 25 most influential people in America. She served as President Clinton's head of the Office on Violence Against Women. Despite having the support of her home state Senators, Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin, she never received a Committee vote after her hearing. How ironic that last week the junior Senator from Utah tried to claim credit for progress this year by comparing confirmations to the 1996 session. The Senate Republican majority that year stalled most of President Clinton's nominees and would not allow the confirmation of any circuit court nominees. That is not a record to be proud of but a record that led to Chief Justice Rehnquist criticizing the Senate Republicans for their obstruction. This should not be a race to the bottom but that seems to be the intent of Senate Republicans. By contrast, if we look at the last two presidential election years, we will see we were able to bring the number of judicial vacancies down to the lowest levels in the past 20 years. In 2004 at end of President Bush's first term, vacancies were reduced to 28 not the 75 at which they are today. In 2008, in the last year of President Bush's second term, we again worked to fill vacancies and got them down to 34, less than half of what they are today. In 2004, 25 nominees were confirmed between June and the presidential election, and in 2008, 22 nominees were confirmed between June and the presidential election. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently released a report confirming that judicial nominees continue to be confirmed in presidential election years, except it seems when there is a Democratic President. In five of the last eight presidential election years, the Senate has confirmed at least 22 circuit and district court nominees after May 31. The notable exceptions were during the last years of President Clinton's two terms in 1996 and 2000 when Senate Republicans would not allow confirmations to continue. Otherwise, it has been the rule rather than the exception. So, for example, the Senate confirmed 32 in 1980; 28 in 1984; 31 in 1992; 28 in 2004 at the end of President George W. Bush's first term; and 22 after May 31 in 2008 at the end of President Bush's second term. We have heard lots of excuses from Senate Republicans, who have tried to shift the blame for the judicial vacancy crisis to the President-- much as they try to blame him for the debt of European countries and other matters. They claim that the President has not made enough nominations. With last week's announcement that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm any more circuit court nominees, that excuse melts away. There are nominees ready to be confirmed and the reason they are not being considered is Republican obstruction. This is wrong. I wish they would not put politics ahead of the needs of the American people. The across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's nominees is not the product of a Thurmond Rule to limit confirmations at the end of presidential election years to nominees with bipartisan support. Rather this is a continuation of obstruction that began as soon as this President was elected. Senate Republicans insisted that filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees were unconstitutional, yet they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and who had the support of his home state Senator, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit before she was confirmed 99 0, and the nomination of Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit was filibustered before he was confirmed 98 0 after four months of needless delays. At a time when judicial vacancies remained historically high for three years, with 30 more vacancies and 30 fewer confirmations than at this point in President Bush's first term, I would hope the Senate Republican leadership would reconsider and work with us on filling these longstanding judicial vacancies to help the American people. We have well-qualified, consensus nominees with bipartisan support who can fill these vacancies. It is only partisan politics and continued tactics of obstruction that stand in the way. Is it any wonder why Congress is so unpopular? I take no comfort in the rise in the congressional approval rating--it is from 9 percent to 17 percent. This is this kind of obstruction that turns off the American people. Stop the senseless obstruction--whether you call it the Thurmond Rule or not--and start helping the American people by easing the burden on them and the courts around the country. Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Mary Geiger Lewis to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Ms. Lewis has the support of her Republican home state Senator Lindsey Graham. Her nomination was voted on and received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee over three months ago. I thank the Majority Leader for his work in securing a vote on this nomination. Mary Lewis has worked in private practice for over 25 years at the law firm Lewis & Babcock LLP, and has tried approximately 15 cases to verdict or final judgment. Born in Columbia, South Carolina, she earned her J.D. from the University of South Carolina and served as a law clerk to Judge Owens Taylor Cobb in the South Carolina Judicial Department. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Lewis ``qualified'' to serve on the district court. I support Ms. Lewis and hope she will be confirmed. I also hope that Senate Republicans will reconsider their wrongheaded move to shut down the confirmation of consensus, well-qualified circuit court nominees. Given our overburdened Federal courts and the need to provide all Americans with prompt justice, we should all be working in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these nominees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, later this month, I and other Members of Congress will be watching what happens in a courtroom 7,000 miles from Washington, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. That is where a journalist named Eskinder Nega stands accused of supporting terrorism simply for refusing to remain silent about the Ethiopian government's increasingly authoritarian drift. The trial is finished, and a verdict is expected on June 21. Mr. Eskinder is not alone. Since 2011, the Ethiopian government has charged 10 other journalists with terrorism or threatening national security for questioning government actions and policies--activities that you and I and people around the world would recognize as fundamental to any free press. Ironically, by trying to silence those who do not toe the official line, the government is only helping to underscore the concerns that many inside and outside of Ethiopia share about the deterioration of democracy and human rights in that country. Ethiopia is an important partner for the United States in at least two key areas: containing the real threat of terrorism in the region, and making gains against the region's recurring famines and fostering the kind of development that can bring the cycle of poverty and hunger to an end. The United States has provided large amounts of assistance in furtherance of both goals, because a stable, democratic Ethiopia could exert a positive influence throughout the Horn of Africa and help point the way to a more peaceful and prosperous future. That is why President Obama invited Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to last month's G 8 Summit at Camp David. The subject was food security, and Prime Minister Meles and the leaders of several other African countries helped inaugurate a new public-private alliance for nutrition that aims to increase agricultural production and lift 50 million people out of poverty in the next 10 years. I can think of nothing that will do more to further peace and prosperity of the region than this kind of targeted, practical, and cooperative initiative. But initiatives like this depend for their success on broad national consultation, transparency and accountability. Consultation to integrate ideas from diverse perspectives, transparency to maintain partner confidence that their investment is reaching its targets, and accountability to ensure it produces the desired results. And transparency and accountability depend, in no small part, on a free press. In Ethiopia, that means enabling journalists like Eskinder Nega to do their work of reporting and peaceful political participation. But seven times in Prime Minister Meles's 20-year rule, Mr. Eskinder has been detained for his reporting. In 2005, he and his journalist wife Serkalem Fasil were imprisoned for reporting on protests following that year's disputed national elections. They spent 17 months in prison, their newspapers were shut down, and Mr. Eskinder has been denied a license to practice journalism ever since. Yet he carried on, publishing articles online that highlight the government's denial of human rights and calling for an end to political repression and corruption. In some of those articles, Mr. Eskinder specifically criticized the Meles government for misusing a vaguely-worded 2009 antiterrorism law to jail journalists and political opponents. Now he stands accused of terrorism. At his trial, which opened in Addis Ababa on March 6, the government reportedly offered as evidence against him a video of a town hall meeting in which Mr. Eskinder discusses the Arab spring and speculates on whether similar protests were possible in Ethiopia. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. The trial of Eskinder Nega, the imprisonment of several of his colleagues on similar spurious charges, and the fact that Ethiopia has driven so many journalists into exile over the last decade has eroded confidence in Prime Minister Meles' commitment to press freedom and to other individual liberties that are guaranteed by the Ethiopian constitution and fundamental to any democracy. The United States and Ethiopia share important interests, and the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $350 million in assistance for Ethiopia. However, to the extent that any of that assistance is intended for the Ethiopian government, the importance of respecting freedom of the press cannot be overstated. What happens to Mr. Eskinder and other journalists there will resonate loudly not only in Ethiopia, but also in the United States Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night the Senate voted to end the Republican filibuster of this outstanding nominee. For the 28th time since President Obama was elected, the majority leader was forced to file cloture to get an up-or-down vote on one of President Obama's judicial nominations. Justice Hurwitz is not a nominee who should have been filibustered. With the support of Senator Kyl, the partisan effort to stall yet another judicial nomination was defeated. I thank Senator Kyl and the Republican Senators who had the good sense to agree to proceed to an up-or-down vote on this nomination. By any traditional measure, Justice Hurwitz is the kind of judicial nominee who should have been confirmed easily by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority. Justice Hurwitz has served for 9 years on the Arizona Supreme Court and had a distinguished legal career. He has the support of his home state Senators, both conservative Republicans. He was unanimously rated well qualified by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. And he was nominated to fill a longstanding judicial emergency vacancy on the overburdened Ninth Circuit after extensive consultation between the White House and the Arizona Senators. The campaign that was mounted by the extreme right against this outstanding nominee was wrong. I spoke against it yesterday, as did Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein. Some were attempting to disqualify a nominee with impeccable credentials because a Federal judge for whom that nominee clerked some 40 years ago decided a case with which they disagree, a case that is still reflected as the law of the land. We have seen a number of new and disappointing developments during the last 2 years as Republicans have ratcheted up their partisan opposition to President Obama's judicial nominees. On this nomination, for example, I saw for what I think may be the first time a Senator reverse his vote for a nomination and, instead, oppose cloture and support a filibuster of that same nomination. Justice Hurwitz's nomination is representative of the new standard that has been imposed on President Obama's judicial nominees since this President took office. After close consultation with home State Senators, President Obama sent to the Senate a nominee with unimpeachable credentials. Indeed, in the near decade that he has served on the Arizona Supreme Court, not one of Justice Hurwitz's decisions has been overturned. Despite the bipartisan support for Justice Hurwitz, and his excellent credentials, partisan Republicans have filibustered this nomination. I heard some Senate Republicans attempt to mischaracterize Justice Hurwitz's record on the death penalty. Over his 9-year tenure on the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Hurwitz has personally authored eight opinions and joined numerous other opinions upholding the death penalty. He also responded to both Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions that ``the death penalty is a constitutionally appropriate form of punishment'' and that he ``has voted in scores of cases to uphold the death penalty.'' Justice Hurwitz's critics argue that he was the lone dissenter in two rulings involving the death penalty, but in each case Justice Hurwitz did not oppose the death penalty but sought to ensure that due process was followed to guarantee fair justice and prevent reversal on appeal. In State v. Beaty, the State of Arizona had decided overnight to apply a new death penalty execution cocktail, and Justice Hurwitz felt that a new execution warrant was necessary. Justice Hurwitz's dissent was not opposing the death penalty; rather, he specifically requested the court ``immediately issue a new [execution] warrant effective as soon as legally possible.'' In State v. Styers, Justice Hurwitz relied on Supreme Court precedent and held that it prevented the Court from affirming the defendant's death sentence when one aggregating factor had not been tried to a jury. In his dissent, Justice Hurwitz reasoned that a limited proceeding on that aggravating factor was ``constitutionally mandated and will likely bring this case to conclusion more promptly than the new round of federal habeas proceedings that will inevitably follow today's decision.'' Thus, Justice Hurwitz did not ``quarrel with the substance of the determination,'' but felt that the procedural error should have been corrected. The fact that he successfully argued the case of Ring v. Arizona, where the U.S. Supreme Court found by a 7 2 vote that the Constitution requires a jury trial to establish the aggravating circumstances that make a defendant eligible to receive the death penalty, does not make him an opponent of the death penalty any more than Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, who supported the decision, oppose the death penalty. That case was principally about the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and it was not a challenge to the death penalty. Moreover, a ``study'' cited that purports to label Justice Hurwitz as ``pro defendant'' is based on a sample size of only 10 criminal cases-- and Justice Hurwitz was not on the bench for four of them. That is hardly representative of Justice Hurwitz's career on the bench and the many criminal appeals Justice Hurwitz has heard and the many convictions he has upheld. Let us be honest about his record. Justice Hurwitz is an outstanding nominee with impeccable credentials and qualifications. He has a record of excellence as a jurist. Not a single decision he has made from the bench in his nine years as justice has been reversed, and he has the strong support of both Republican Senators from Arizona as well as many, many others from both sides of the political aisle. A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, Justice Hurwitz served as the Note and Comment Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Following graduation, he clerked on every level of the Federal judiciary: First for Judge Jon O. Newman, who was then U.S. District Judge on the District of Connecticut. Subsequently, he clerked for Judge Joseph Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Then he clerked for Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court. He then distinguished himself in private practice, where he spent over 25 years at a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona. While in private practice, Justice Hurwitz tried more than 40 cases to verdict or final decision. Justice Hurwitz has also taught classes at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law for approximately 15 years on a variety of subjects including ethics, Supreme Court litigation, legislative process, civil procedure, and Federal courts. By any traditional measure, Justice Hurwitz is the kind of judicial nominee who should be confirmed easily by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote. And now that the Senate has been forced to invoke cloture with 60 votes to end a partisan filibuster, I hope the Senate will vote to confirm him with bipartisan support. I will conclude by emphasizing what I have been saying for months, that the Ninth Circuit is in dire need of assistance. This nomination should have been considered and confirmed months ago. The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit along with the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, wrote to the Senate months ago emphasizing the Ninth Circuit's ``desperate need for judges,'' urging the Senate to ``act on judicial nominees without delay,'' and concluding ``we fear that the public will suffer unless our vacancies are filled very promptly.'' The judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit harm litigants by creating unnecessary and costly delays. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that it takes nearly 5 months longer for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion after an appeal is filed, compared to all other circuits. The Ninth Circuit's backlog of pending cases far exceeds other Federal courts. As of September 2011, the Ninth Circuit had 14,041 cases pending before it, far more than any other circuit. When Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit for positions she took while representing the State of New York, they contended that their underlying concern was that the caseload of the D.C. Circuit did not justify the appointment of another judge to that Circuit. I disagreed with their treatment of Caitlin Halligan, their shifting standards and their purported caseload argument. But if caseloads were really a concern, Senate Republicans would not have delayed action on the nominations to judicial emergency vacancies on the overburdened Ninth Circuit for months and months. So, let us move forward to confirm Justice Hurwitz without further delay. The partisan filibuster against this nomination was wrong. Just as we moved forward after defeating the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Jack McConnell, let us move forward now to vote on the 17 other judicial nominees ready for final Senate action and make real progress in working with the President to fill judicial vacancies around the country.

Mr. LEAHY

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