Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about some troubling developments in El Salvador, which should concern us all. On June 14, 2011, the body of Juan Francisco Duran Ayala was found with a gunshot wound to the head in the Soyapango Municipality of San Salvador. He was reportedly last seen alive on June 2 in Ilobasco, Cabanas, posting flyers critical of gold mining in that area, the day before he disappeared. In addition to studying at the Technological University in San Salvador, Mr. Duran had volunteered for the Environmental Committee of Cabanas in Defense of Water and Culture. His death is one of a shocking number of instances of violence against antimining activists in Cabanas. In 2009, Gustavo Marcelo Rivera went missing for nearly 2 weeks before his body was found on June 30 in a well with signs of torture. Mr. Rivera was the cofounder of the Asociacion Amigos de San Isidro Cabanas, and was a vocal leader in the anti-mining campaign in San Isidro, Cabanas. Since Mr. Rivera's death, at least eight other members of the antimining community in Cabanas have reportedly been killed, including Mr. Duran, and yet it is still unclear who is behind this pattern of deadly violence. There have also been recurrent threats against the lives of journalists at Radio Victoria, which broadcasts in that area. Cabanas is located in the north central part of El Salvador and has a long history of gold mining. Pacific Rim Mining, a Canadian company that acquired a large mine named El Dorado, was the subject of Mr. Rivera's and Mr. Duran's protests. Now that their voices have been silenced, people in that community are demanding thorough, credible investigations of these crimes, both to obtain justice for their families and in order that future activists can exercise their right to speak out peacefully without losing their lives. Unfortunately, El Salvador is a country where criminal investigations rarely result in arrests, and those that do almost never result in convictions. Impunity and corruption within the police are common, as in many other countries of the region. Some accuse local police and municipal officials of complicity in the harassment and threats against antimine activists and the radio station, and point to the fact that no one has been punished for these crimes. To compound the problem, judicial independence, already fragile, is under threat in El Salvador. On June 2 the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly approved a decree which requires the five members of the Constitutional Court to rule unanimously instead of with the previous four person majority. The law was approved with the support of a broad spectrum of political parties. The vote was reportedly in response to a number of unpopular decisions by the Court over the past 2 years. The passage of the decree threatens judicial independence in a country where the Court has only recently demonstrated a willingness to act as a check on executive and legislative power. That is the role of the judiciary in a democracy, and the outcome of this impasse will have profound implications for the country. El Salvador has been through a difficult history. The 1980s civil war polarized the country and those who suffered most, the rural poor, are still struggling to recover. The country's democratic institutions are weak, particularly the judiciary. The country is coping with rampant violent crime, and the infiltration of well financed criminal gangs into all sectors of society. In the midst of this, the brutal slayings of people like Juan Francisco Duran Ayala and Gustavo Marcelo Rivera might be regarded as little more than a grim statistic, soon to be forgotten. But we have not forgotten them. All indications are that they did nothing more than act as the voices of people in their communities who are concerned that their way of life, and the land they depend on, is being destroyed. We know the Funes Government is coping with many problems. We are helping, by providing tens of millions of dollars to support programs in health, education, economic development, and to strengthen law enforcement. We provided additional funding to help the country rebuild from the devastating floods in November 2009. But there is no more important responsibility of government than upholding the rule of law. The urgent necessity of the message that would be sent to all the people of El Salvador by bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice cannot be overstated.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Environmental Protection Agency took steps to make the air in Vermont cleaner by issuing the final cross-State air pollution rule. In Vermont, we pride ourselves on our bucolic views, unspoiled waterways, and our connection to the land. Yet, all of this is threatened by pollution that is beyond our control, and coming from beyond our borders. Vermont has always been a dumping ground, so to speak, for emissions from coal-fired powerplants from other States. Toxic pollution, generated in other parts of the country, blows into Vermont and damages our State's scenic beauty, decreases the value of conservation investments, and damages our forests, lakes, rivers, and wetlands. These powerplant emissions and air pollution are transported long distances and not only mars our landscapes and threatens our health, but it also costs downwind States and businesses billions of dollars annually. Our only defense against such activity is the Federal Clean Air Act. Today, with the implementation of the EPA's cross-State air pollution rule, powerplants will be required to install new pollution controls that reduce the amount of dangerous emissions crossing State lines and entering Vermont. This will level the playing field by requiring powerplants to make long overdue investments in proven, readily available pollution control technologies that are already in place at many powerplants. The cross-State air pollution rule requires many fossil fuel-fired powerplants to slash emissions that cross State lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution in other States. These pollutants contribute to smog and air pollution which causes tens of thousands of Americans to become sick each year. Those most susceptible to illnesses related to poor air quality are often our most vulnerable citizens. The elderly and children, especially those already suffering from respiratory disorders like asthma, are routinely forced to stay inside on poor air quality days. Pollution is also responsible for thousands of new respiratory illnesses each year, adding more unnecessary costs to our health care system. In fact, the reductions contained in this rule would prevent 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths each year, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million missed school and work days. The total benefits of this rule are estimated to be $120-290 billion. Some believe these benefits are not worth the costs to industry. However, the cross-State air pollution rule is projected to cost industry from $10-30 billion, a very modest amount compared to the financial benefits and deaths prevented by this rule. In addition, a utility-funded report recently contradicted arguments that the rule will threaten U.S. electricity reliability. The reason for this is that a majority of utilities have already taken steps to adapt to Federal rules. In fact, over half of the country's coal-fired powerplants have already installed sulfur dioxide scrubbers or plan to install them. Of those that had plans to retire units, they are doing so because they are inefficient and cannot compete in today's market, not because of these rules. In the end, only about one-fourth of the Nation's powerplants need to take action. Are we going to let these plants, which have dragged their feet, refusing to install new technology that would prevent pollution and prevent deaths and serious illness, continue to poison our air on the public's dime? No, instead we should encourage the use of cleaner technologies that will lead to healthier air, increased efficiency, and a boost in jobs. Overall, regulations under the Clean Air Act have dramatically reduced air pollution while creating jobs and spurring American innovation in new industries and technology. Reports show the creation of 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years and increased global exports of domestically produced clean technologies. History has demonstrated that since 1970, every dollar spent on compliance with the Clean Air Act has led to $4- $8 in economic benefits. By 2020, the total benefits of the Clean Air Act will reach $2 trillion. Coming from a State with no coal-fired powerplants that has been on the receiving end of these pollutants for far too long, I fully welcome the final cross-State air pollution rule because I know that it will improve the quality of life for Vermonters who are subject to the impacts, and costs, of pollution from far beyond our borders. This rule is good for Vermont. It is good for the country. The Clean Air Act has been cleaning our air for over four decades, while continuing to grow our economy. The final cross-State air pollution rule that was published today will encourage innovation and cost-savings and help powerplants achieve their mission of providing clean, affordable, and reliable energy. I am happy to see the EPA use this tool, given to it by Congress, to protect the people and the environment of Vermont and the rest of the country from pollution generated by distant industries.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Saturday, August 6, Sister Mary of the Savior, O.P., will reaffirm her professional religious vows on the 25th anniversary of her vows. My dear friend Bishop Moses Anderson, S.S.E., will preside. I have known Sister Mary as long as I can remember. She was Cathleen Going, and she and her dear sister Patricia grew up near the Leahy family in Vermont. Her parents and my parents were the closest of friends, and when I look at the picture taken 25 years ago at her professional vows I see my mother, Alba Leahy, in the front row. Sister Mary of the Savior has given her life to help others, both through her deeds and her prayers. In a world when too little of that is done, my wife Marcelle and I so appreciate people like her. I knew first of this from our friend, Moses Anderson, who has also given of his life and the two of us have talked about Cathleen and what she has done. It is wonderful to have people like that in one's life, and I want the Senate to know about this remarkable woman.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of David S. Cohen to be Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. Mr. Cohen previously served as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, and has previously served in the Department of the Treasury's General Counsel's Office. His strong record of service is commendable and his expertise will serve him well in this new role. Mr. Cohen's nomination has been carefully considered by the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, both of which favorably reported the nomination of Mr. Cohen to the full Senate. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over some of the crimes that Mr. Cohen will fight in his new role at the Department, both at the international and domestic level. I appreciate Mr. Cohen's commitment to me that he will make himself available to the Committee on the Judiciary for hearings and activities within the committee's legislative and oversight jurisdiction that overlap with the Undersecretary's responsibilities. As the committee considers terrorism financing, material support for terrorism, and money laundering, among other topics, I look forward to working with Mr. Cohen.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, in the President's Room at 11 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Promoting Broader Access to Public Transportation for America's Older Adults and People with Disabilities.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Emergence of Swap Execution Facilities: A Progress Report.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Diplomat's Shield: Diplomatic Security and Its Implications for U.S. Diplomacy.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, back on May 12, the President requested that Congress pass legislation to enable Robert Mueller to continue serving as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for up to 2 additional years, in light of the continuing threat to our Nation, the leadership transition at other key national security agencies, and the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves as the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches. In response to the President's request, a bipartisan group of Senators drafted and introduced S. 1103, a bill that would create a one-time exception to the statute limiting the term of the FBI Director by allowing the term of the incumbent FBI Director to continue for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threats to our Nation and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that this critical legislation be enacted without delay. Director Mueller's term expires on August 3, 2011. With the House out of session this week and the Senate out of session the next, there is relatively little time left to act. Of the 10 weeks between the President's request and the expiration of Director Mueller's term, six are gone already. More than half the time that we had in which to act has elapsed. If we do not complete action on this matter this week, the Senate will then be in recess until July 11. That leaves Congress only 3 weeks for all necessary action to be completed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. We should be acting responsibly and expeditiously. I have worked diligently with Senator Grassley in order to prevent a lapse in the term of the Director of the FBI. We must act on this bill without further, unnecessary delays. The Senate should take it up, consider it and pass it, and then the House will need to consider and pass the bill before the President has the opportunity to sign it. Each of these steps must be completed prior to the expiration of the Director's current 10-year term on August 3, 2011. There is no time to waste. I understand from the Senate cloakroom that all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass S. 1103 and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 3. We should do that now, before the Fourth of July recess. There is no good reason for delay. The bill responds directly to the President's request to extend Bob Mueller's term as FBI Director, and was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee on June 16 by a bipartisan majority of the committee and with the support of the ranking Republican member. I urge any Senators who have questions about the bill to read the accompanying committee report, Report No. 112-23, which was filed on June 21, 2011, and is now printed and available online. While I would gladly have included others' views in the final committee report, none were submitted in a timely manner, nor was there a request for an extension of time to do so. The draft committee report on the bill was circulated on June 17, 2011, to all committee members. Pursuant to longstanding Judiciary Committee practice, Senators had 3 calendar days to submit their views. This practice is modeled after, but more generous than, Senate rule XXVI. The committee report was filed 4 days after majority views were circulated, but no additional, supplemental, or minority views had been submitted. It was filed promptly and made publicly available in the hope that the Senate might consider this time-sensitive bill this week. Unlike my Republican predecessors, as chairman I have protected the minority on the committee and the rights of all Senators. I have done so even while some have chosen to abuse committee rules and practices and Senate rules and practices. Senator Coburn inserted his views, also subscribed to by Senators Hatch, Sessions, Graham and Lee, in the Congressional Record on June 23. I had offered to include them in the Record on June 22, when they were belatedly submitted to the committee after the committee report had been filed. There is nothing in those views that should prevent the Senate from considering the committee-reported bill expeditiously. I do not believe that the views Senator Coburn inserted into the Congressional Record contain any new or compelling legal analysis supporting the notion that S. 1103 is somehow unconstitutional. They merely assert without a sound basis that the matter may present a constitutional concern and the risk of ``dangerous litigation.'' As set forth in the committee report on S. 1103, and as reaffirmed in a June 20, 2011, memorandum opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, however, these assertions are incorrect. The bill before the Senate, S. 1103, is constitutionally sound and a proper response by Congress to the President's request. At the heart of this issue are two key points that remain undisputed. First, the Director of the FBI serves ``at will'' and can be removed by the President for any reason. Director Mueller himself testified that he serves ``at the pleasure of the President.'' Second, this bill was introduced as a response to the President's request that Congress provide a one-time exception to the 10-year statutory limit to the term of the FBI Director so that he could extend Director Mueller's service for up to two more years. Indeed, the text of the bill plainly states that Director Mueller may continue his term of service only ``at the request of the President.'' These two points are important because they form core elements for any constitutional analysis in connection with the appointments clause. This bill does not seek to impose a legislative appointment on the President, nor undermine his authority. The committee report describes the constitutional and legal principle that is central to any assessment of the constitutionality of this bill: ``Legislation extending the term of an officer who serves at will does not violate the Appointments Clause,'' quoting 18 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 166, 171, 1994. Through four separate legal opinions dating back to 1951, and reaffirmed as recently as June 20, 2011, the Department of Justice has recognized this guiding principle. The Constitution's appointments clause is not offended ``as long as the President remains free to remove the officer at will and make another appointment.'' U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 2-3, June 20, 2011. The bill reported by the committee ensures that the President retains that authority. Furthermore, the bill does nothing to diminish the authority of the President. Senator Coburn's views lack discussion of either the ``at will'' status of the FBI Director or the President's plenary removal authority. Instead, his views summarily dismiss the extensive legal analysis of the Department of Justice dating back 60 years by arguing that the opinions are ``inconsistent.'' The only inconsistency was an anomalous opinion from 1987 that was withdrawn by the Justice Department in 1994, after the 1987 opinion was determined to be ``irredeemably unpersuasive.'' Ironically, it is that withdrawn opinion, one that has no authority, in which critics of the bill seek to find comfort. Beginning with an opinion in 1951, and then again in three more recent legal memoranda, in 1994, in 1996, and most recently on June 20, 2011, the Department of Justice has endorsed the constitutionality of term extensions like the one provided in the bill for ``at will'' executive officers. Senator Coburn argues that the value of these Office of Legal Counsel opinions should be discounted because very few cases have been litigated concerning these types of term extensions. He fails to acknowledge, however, that the lack of litigation on this point could be due to the fact that the constitutional concern on which he relies simply lacks merit. The fact remains that there is no case and no persuasive legal authority supporting Senator Coburn's contention that the bill is unconstitutional. Also virtually ignored by Senator Coburn's views is the fact that the bill effectively retains the President's appointment authority. The President could nominate and then appoint a different FBI Director at any time before, during, or at the end of the 2-year term extension. The President is not required by the bill to request that Director Mueller continue to serve for the full 2 years of the extension. That is up to the President. These facts are dismissed by Senator Coburn as ``irrelevant'' or ``immaterial'' to the discussion. In fact, they are just the opposite. The fact that this legislation is being considered at the behest of the President demonstrates that there is no legislative branch incursion into executive authority. Because S. 1103 is in direct response to the President's specific request for legislation creating a one-time exemption to the 10-year term limit of the FBI Director, the bill serves to protect the authority of the President to choose who he wants to lead this executive agency. That is wholly consistent with the purpose of the appointments clause. Senator Coburn's attempts to distinguish the limited, relevant case law are also unavailing. As noted in the committee report, Judge Norris's concurring opinion in the case In re Benny, 812 F. 2d 1133, 9th Cir. 1987, is not on point, as that case involved officials who were only removable for cause. Senator Coburn's reliance on Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 1988, is similarly misplaced. The lengthy quote of Justice Scalia's in the minority views is drawn, for example, from a discussion of the separation of powers doctrine, not from Justice Scalia's discussion of the appointments clause. The Morrison decision was about the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, not a simple extension of a statutory term limit. The Morrison decision held that the statute at issue was constitutional because it did not ``impermissibly undermine the powers of the Executive Branch'' or ``prevent[] the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.'' That is all the more true for S. 1103, which was requested by the President and does nothing to impinge upon the President's appointment or removal power. In his concluding remarks, Senator Coburn concedes that he is not asserting that S. 1103 is unconstitutional. Instead, Senator Coburn retreats to a concern with what he characterizes as the ``small chance'' of possible litigation. The supposed litigation risk is not a good reason for Senator Coburn's multistage approach when a simple, one-time term extension will accomplish the goal. This is particularly true when the committee reported bill is constitutional. The FBI is not troubled by the supposed exposure ``of Director Mueller's authority to dangerous litigation risk.'' Senator Coburn does not cite any operational concern raised by the FBI or anyone else in law enforcement concerning this supposed litigation risk. The FBI Director and the Department of Justice do not seem concerned about this supposed litigation risk. I am confident that we would have heard from the FBI and other law enforcement groups if there was any concern that this bill would somehow undermine the law enforcement or intelligence operations of the FBI. To the contrary, S. 1103 enjoys the strong support of the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Organizations. The Justice Department does not share Senator Coburn's concerns. The Office of Legal Counsel recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of the bill in a new memorandum dated June 20, which is included in the appendix to the Senate committee report and rests upon 60 years of constitutional interpretation. The White House is not concerned. Neither am I. The bill that the committee reported and I support is constitutional and does not raise any real risk. Senator Coburn has known since he raised his alternative approach that there are two major problems with it. The first problem I have already discussed. It is wrongly predicated on a constitutional problem that does not exist. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a term extension of a limit that Congress imposed on the term of service of the Director of the FBI. Indeed, as the witnesses at our June 8 hearing pointed out, the logic of Senator Coburn's concern could mean that the 10-year limit Congress imposed on the term of service of the FBI Director would itself be constitutionally suspect. The supposed justification for Senator Coburn's cumbersome legislative plan is just wrong. The reported bill, S. 1103, which was initially drafted by Senator Grassley and made more explicit by the committee, is constitutional. The second major problem with Senator Coburn's approach is that it would necessitate the renomination of Director Mueller, and then his reconsideration and reconfirmation by the Senate after enactment of Senator Coburn's alternative bill and before August 3. That is an additional, unnecessary and, I might suggest, dangerous complication. I do not want Americans to be approaching the tenth anniversary of 9/11 without an FBI Director in office. The distractions to Director Mueller created by the extended proceedings on this legislation are damaging enough. The extension of Director Mueller's service leading the FBI should not fall victim to the same objections that have obstructed Senate action on other important presidential nominations and appointments. I have spoken often about the unnecessary and inexcusable delays on judicial nominations. Even consensus nominees have faced long delays before Senate Republicans would allow a vote. Since President Obama was elected, we have had to overcome two filibusters on two Circuit Court nominees who were reported unanimously by the committee. These judges--Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit--were then confirmed unanimously once the filibusters were brought to an end. These are currently 16 judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and yet are stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar because Senate Republicans will not consent to vote on them. These are consensus nominations that should not have been delayed while the Federal courts are experiencing a judicial vacancies crisis. This pattern of delay and obstruction has not been confined to judges. President Obama's executive nominations have been subjected to the same unfair treatment. The first five U.S. attorneys appointed by President Obama were delayed more than 2 months for no good reason in the summer of 2009. These are the top Federal law enforcement officers in those districts and yet it took from June 4 to August 7 before Senate Republicans would consent to their confirmations. They were then confirmed unanimously. The Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission was similarly delayed unnecessarily for almost 6 months from May 7 until October 21, 2009. He, too, was ultimately confirmed without opposition, but after needless delay. Among a slew of other troublesome examples are these: One Republican Senator objected to a nominee to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because, according to that Senator, the nominee lacked the necessary qualifications. The nominee was a Nobel Prize winner and MIT economics professor. Another Republican Senator is blocking the confirmation of two SEC Commissioners until he extracts action from the SEC related to a case against the Stanford Financial Group. A group of Senate Republicans have sent a letter to President Obama vowing to oppose any nominee to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republican Senators are vowing to block President Obama's nominee to serve as the Secretary of Commerce. In a particularly illustrative case, one Republican Senator lifted his hold on the nomination of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after the administration acceded to his demands and issued 15 offshore oil drilling permits. Shortly thereafter, another Republican Senator placed a hold on the very same nomination to force the Interior Department to release documents on the Department's ``wild lands'' policy. It did not end there. When that dispute was resolved, a third Republican Senator reportedly placed a hold on the nominee, demanding a review of the protected status of wolves. That nominee has still not been confirmed. Regrettably, Senate Republicans have ratcheted up the partisanship, limiting the cooperation that used to allow nominations to move forward more quickly. We cannot and should not take risks with this critical term extension for the head of the FBI. I do not want to see another important nomination subjected to holds and delays. I do not want to see another well-qualified national security nominee used as leverage by the Republican Senate minority to extract other unrelated concessions. That is what Senator Coburn's alternative plan invites. I recently outlined the obstruction of key national security-related nominations, the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for National Security. I do not want to see that happen, again, with the nomination of an FBI Director, but we have no guarantee that the President's nomination of an FBI Director would be treated any differently. Republicans played ``chicken'' with a government shutdown earlier this year. We can see the same dynamic developing on the debt ceiling and the budget. Likewise, many Republicans, including their House leaders, who contended that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional when the President was a Republican, are now seeking to use it as a partisan cudgel to diminish this President, with little regard for the damage that does to America, NATO and the effort to end the brutal repression of the Libyan people by Moammar Qadhafi. The Senate is finally this week seeking to complete action on a bipartisan, leadership-supported legislative approach to reforming Senate consideration of presidential nominations. It has taken weeks and months to get this far. Senate Republicans undermined their leadership and failed to support Senator Alexander and Senator McConnell, who were instrumental in developing the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, S. 679. The Senate has been stuck trying to complete this bill since June 16, when the majority leader could not even get consent to proceed to the bill. Bills that used to take 2 hours of floor time now consume 2 weeks. Republican Senators who could not be bothered with conducting oversight when a Republican was in the White House are now adamant that the Senate should not streamline any presidential nominations, arguing that doing so would undercut Senate opportunities to conduct what they call oversight. This is just another example of how virtually everything is viewed through a partisan lens since the American people elected President Obama. Senator Coburn has known since we began to consider the President's request to extend the FBI Director's term that his plan could not be considered a viable alternative unless there was an agreement from Senate Republicans to ensure that the Senate would complete its work and have the FBI Director in place at the end of the summer. That agreement would take the form of a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, entered into by all Senators, and locked in on the Record so that it could not be changed without unanimous consent. That has not occurred. That is the only way to ensure Senate action on a nomination before August 3. The House would also have to agree to such an approach. Senator Coburn has been unable to convince his leadership and the Republican caucus to agree. It may be because some do not want to agree. It may be because some do not want to give up the ``leverage'' such a nomination might provide to them on other matters. Maybe they just do not want to make anything too ``easy'' on this President. Whatever the reasons, no such agreement has been forthcoming in the weeks it has been under consideration. In fact, at the Judiciary Committee business meeting on the bill, when Senator Coburn could not offer the assurances required to lock in prompt and timely consideration of a subsequent nomination of the FBI Director after enactment of legislation and before August 3, he did suggest that his side of the aisle would forego several steps of the standard process for considering nominees. He offered to waive the questionnaire, the background check, and the confirmation hearing on Director Mueller. But this commitment was illusory, because not even all of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee agreed. Senator Cornyn, having questioned Director Mueller's ``management capacity,'' indicated that he wanted confirmation hearings and the opportunity to ask questions. Of course, the Senator from Texas was within his rights to say so. But that shows the practical difficulties of following Senator Coburn's complicated, two-part scenario with no guarantee of it being completed by August 3. Republican Senators lectured us on the ease with which the majority leader should be able to obtain cloture on a new nomination of Director Mueller. That again makes my point. Without a binding agreement, it could take days to consider the nomination, perhaps a full week. We have just witnessed Senate Republicans filibustering for the first time in American history the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. They did that just last month. While Senator Cornyn opined that the renomination of Director Mueller should be able to get 60 votes for cloture, and we should be able to end a filibuster of the nomination on the Senate floor, he also said that he could not control other Republican Senators. To complete action in accordance with Senator Coburn's alternative plan would mean not only passing legislation but the Senate receiving, considering and confirming the renomination of Director Mueller. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 2001 when the Senate considered and confirmed Director Mueller's initial nomination within two weeks. I worked hard to make that happen. Regrettably, given the current practices of Senate Republicans, and their unwillingness to agree on expedited treatment for President Obama's nominations, it is foolhardy in my judgment to think that all Senate Republicans will cooperate without the binding force of a unanimous consent entered in the Record. Let me mention just one more recent example. Consider the time line of the nomination of the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. The nominee was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee and unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and approved unanimously by the Senate just yesterday. That nomination took 15 weeks for the Senate to consider--and she was approved unanimously. It took more than a month just to schedule the Senate vote after the nomination was reported unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and that was 2\1/2\ weeks after it was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was a nominee with whom many of us were familiar and who faced no opposition. Of course, in the case of the FBI Director, there is no necessity to require a new nomination. The simple one-time extension contained in S. 1103 does the job. It provides all the authority needed for the President to ask Director Mueller to stay on and for him to do so without additional action by the Senate. The separate renomination of Director Mueller is not required. As I have said, all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass S. 1103, and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 3. That is what we should be doing. We should do that now, before the Fourth of July recess. There is no good reason for delay. All that is lacking is Senate Republicans' consent. So, as they stall in moving legislation to respond to President Obama's request to extend Director Mueller's term, Senate Republicans will not commit to the unanimous consent request necessary to allow Senator Coburn's alternative to become a possibility. Seven of the eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against the bill to extend Director Mueller's term. Senator Coburn had said that if his alternative was not adopted by the committee, he would vote for the bill, but then he changed his mind and voted against. He then said that he will vote for the bill, S. 1103, when it is considered by the Senate, but Senate Republicans--perhaps including Senator Coburn himself--are now objecting to considering it. We have lost another two weeks since the bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee. Finally, I observe that this is not the only matter the Senate needs to consider before August 3. There is the matter of the United States' default unless the debt ceiling is raised by that time. There is the need to pass the America Invents Act, as passed by the House, to spur innovation and jobs. There are currently 10 executive nominations ready for Senate action reported by the Judiciary Committee and 18 judicial nominations ready for final consideration to address the judicial vacancies crisis. There is much to do, little time, and even less cooperation. This important legislation, S. 1103, would fulfill the President's request that Congress create a one-time exception to the statutory 10- year term of the FBI Director in order to extend the term of the incumbent FBI Director for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threat to our Nation, especially with the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that we respond to the President's request and enact this necessary legislation swiftly. The incumbent FBI Director's term otherwise expires on August 3, 2011. I urge the Senate to take up this critical legislation and pass it without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 4, the Nation will celebrate the 45th anniversary of the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Now in its fifth decade, FOIA remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on government policies and government abuses. This premier open government law has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans. Today, the U.S. Government is more committed than in any time in our history to making and keeping government open and accountable to the people. As one of his first official acts, President Obama signed an historic Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act, which restored the presumption of disclosure for all government information. I applaud President Obama for his commitment to FOIA, and I will continue to work closely with his administration to ensure that our government fulfills both the letter and spirit of this remarkable memorandum. While the Obama administration has made significant progress in improving the FOIA process, large backlogs remain a major roadblock to public access to information. A report released by the National Security Archive found that only about half of the Federal agencies surveyed have taken concrete steps to update their FOIA policies in light of the President's reforms. According to the Department of Justice's annual FOIA Report for fiscal year 2010, more than 69,000 FOIA requests remain backlogged across our government. These delays are simply unacceptable. To address these concerns, in May, the Senate unanimously passed the Faster FOIA Act of 2011--a bill to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency delays in processing FOIA requests. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005, because we were concerned about the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. During the intervening years, this problem has not gone away. That is why in 2010, we reintroduced this bill and the Senate unanimously passed it. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not take action. After the Judiciary Committee's hearing on FOIA, which was held during the annual Sunshine Week in March, we reintroduced the Faster FOIA Act yet again--with the hope that the Congress would finally enact this good government legislation. I am pleased that the Senate has done its part to achieve this goal. On the occasion of this 45th anniversary of FOIA, I urge the House to act on this important bill so that the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays can begin its important work. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also commend and thank the many open government and FOIA advocacy groups that have supported our efforts to bolster FOIA, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Project on Government Oversight and the Sunshine in Government Initiative. The right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, citizens are kept in the dark about key policy decisions that directly affect their lives. Without open government, citizens cannot make informed choices at the ballot box. And once eroded, the right to know is hard to win back. The House Committee Report that accompanied the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 stated: it is vital to our way of life to reach a workable balance between the right of the public to know and the need of the Government to keep information in confidence to the extent necessary without permitting indiscriminate secrecy. The right of the individual to be able to find out how his Government is operating can be just as important to him as his right to privacy and his right to confide in his Government. This bill strikes a balance considering all these interests. As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must reaffirm the commitment to open and transparent government captured by these time-proven words. Open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 45th anniversary of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on June 14, 2011, I introduced the Consular Notification Compliance Act. This legislation will help bring the United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, VCCR, and is critical to ensuring the protection of Americans traveling overseas. Each year, thousands of Americans are arrested and imprisoned when they are in foreign countries studying, working, serving in the military, or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well-being depends, often entirely, on the ability of U.S. consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back home. That access is protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under the treaty--including the United States. As we now know, in some instances, the United States has not been meeting those obligations. There are currently more than 100 foreign nationals on death row in the United States, most of whom were never told of their right to contact their consulate, and their consulate was never notified of their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence. This failure to comply with our treaty obligations undercuts our ability to protect Americans abroad and deeply damages our image as a country that abides by its promises and the rule of law. It would also be completely unacceptable to us if our citizens were treated in this manner. The Consular Notification Compliance Act seeks to bring the United States one step closer to compliance with the convention. It is a narrowly crafted solution. It focuses only on the most serious cases-- those involving the death penalty--but it is a significant step in the right direction and we need to work together to pass it quickly. Texas is poised to execute the next foreign national affected by this failure to comply with the treaty on July 7, 2011. He was not notified of his right to consular assistance, and the Government of Mexico has expressed grave concerns about the case. We do not want this execution to be interpreted as a sign that the United States does not take its treaty obligations seriously, or to further damage relations with an important ally with which we share a border. That message puts American lives at risk. Since introduction of the Consular Notification and Compliance Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of State have worked with me to explain the importance of the bill, its limited nature, and the urgent need to see it passed. On June 28, Attorney General Holder and Secretary Clinton wrote to me in support of the ``carefully crafted, measured, and essential legislative solution'' included in the Consular Notification and Compliance Act. I will ask consent to have a copy of the letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. We have already had productive discussions with Republicans and Democrats from both the House and Senate. I appreciate that others are willing to work together to address this critical issue. I also want to note all of the favorable commentary the bill has generated, including multiple editorials in major newspapers and numerous letters of support from across the political spectrum. I also will ask that a selection of those be printed in the Record following my remarks. Everyone agrees that this legislation is not about giving breaks to criminals. It is not about expanding habeas corpus relief. It is not about weakening the death penalty. This bill is about three things only. It is about protecting Americans when they work, travel, and serve in the military in foreign countries. It is about fulfilling our obligations and upholding the rule of law. And it is about removing a significant impediment to full and complete cooperation with our international allies on national security and law enforcement efforts that keep Americans safe. The bottom line is this--our failure to comply with our legal obligations places Americans at risk. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am announcing that I intend to hold a hearing on this critical issue in July. We must work together, and we must act now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters and editorials to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with Senators Scott Brown, John Kerry, and others to introduce the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, which will reaffirm and expand our commitment to fighting human trafficking. Since it was first enacted with strong bipartisan support more than a decade ago, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has played a central role in our country's efforts to combat human trafficking both abroad and at home. Championed by the late Senator Wellstone and Senator Brownback, the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act drew upon the work and support of a broad coalition of advocacy organizations from across the political and social spectrum groups dedicated to children's rights, human rights, and women's rights, as well as religious organizations including Evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish groups. It was signed by President Clinton and reauthorized twice under President Bush. I am pleased that today we continue the tradition of bipartisan cooperation as we seek the fourth reauthorization of this critical law. Earlier this week, the State Department released its annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which documents the continuing significant human trafficking crisis worldwide. The report has received considerable attention, as The Washington Post editorialized yesterday, the United States has made significant strides on this issue, both through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and through important initiatives from this administration. But much work remains to be done domestically and around the world. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded, or coerced into labor or sexual exploitation. Millions of children, women, and men throughout the world are trafficked every year, including here in the United States. According to recent Government estimates, between 15,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked to the United States annually for the purpose of labor and sexual exploitation. Thousands more of our own children are bought and sold in the commercial sex industry every year. It is no surprise that border states are at a particularly high risk for human trafficking. I am proud that my home state of Vermont is taking significant steps to address the issue. State legislators in Vermont recently passed a comprehensive anti-trafficking law that includes criminal penalties, prevention programs, and services for human trafficking victims. I commend the Vermont legislature for taking on this important issue. Trafficking is an affront to human dignity that we cannot ignore. The United States offers a beacon of hope to so many who face human rights abuses abroad, so we cannot sit back idly while this injustice continues not only elsewhere in the world, but also here at home. Thanks to the tools provided by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, we have made progress in combating this major human rights abuse, but there is more work to be done. This reauthorization reflects Congress's ongoing commitment to abolishing human trafficking. It strengthens the government's ability to combat trafficking by expanding enforcement tools, and by encouraging further inter-agency cooperation to identify victims, investigate offenses, and provide victim services. Strengthening our response to human trafficking in the United States will help this country serve as a model for the world as we work with other nations to confront this complicated problem. An important tool in that international effort is the annual Trafficking in Persons Report established in the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That report has come to serve as an important diplomatic tool to encourage foreign governments to increase efforts against modern-day slavery. This legislation will require that the United States include itself in the report, a step already initiated by Secretary of State Clinton last year. Fighting human trafficking was a priority of the Bush administration, and the Obama administration is continuing that commitment. I applaud the hard work of Secretary of State Clinton, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Labor Solis, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius to find new ways to work together to indentify and support victims of trafficking while bringing the full force of the United States down on those who seek to profit from the exploitation of others. Nowhere on Earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement, least of all here in the United States. We must do all we can to end this scourge. I look forward to working with Senator Brown and Senator Kerry to continue the bipartisan work started by Senators Wellstone and Brownback more than a decade ago. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. After extensive and unnecessary delays, the Senate will finally vote today on three important nominations to fill high-level posts at the Department of Justice. Two of these positions have national security responsibilities. I have been here since the Ford administration, and I cannot recall a time when the Justice Department and the country were deprived of such critical appointees. Whether we had a Republican or Democratic President, we always quickly filled these kinds of national security positions. So it is hard to understand why we have not been able to vote on nominees for positions with significant national security responsibilities such as the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division--especially when we are 2\1/2\ months away from the 10th anniversary of September 11. The nominations of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Virginia Seitz to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel have been blocked for months by Republican obstruction over matters not related to the qualifications of the nominees and in abject disregard of the needs of the Justice Department and the country. So I am glad that today we are finally going to vote and, I trust, confirm these superbly qualified nominees. The unprecedented filibuster of the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General has been especially egregious. The Deputy Attorney General is the No. 2 position at the Justice Department, and it is a position with key national security responsibilities. Despite significant bipartisan support and unquestionable qualifications, Jim Cole's nomination has been blocked for nearly a year. He was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee in July of last year--11 months ago--but the Republicans prevented a vote. He was renominated and reported favorably a second time in the middle of March, but Republicans stalled and filibustered consideration of the nomination last month. During my time in the Senate, I have seen the nominations of many Deputy Attorneys General. Every time they have been voted on favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee--whether under Republican or Democratic control-- their nomination has been voted on within a matter of days on the Senate floor. This is the first time in the Nation's history that a President's nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General was filibustered, and it was wrong. Jim Cole's nomination should not have been controversial. It is a nomination supported by former Republican Senator Jack Danforth, who was nominated by President Bush to be our Ambassador to the United Nations. Senator Danforth worked with Jim Cole for more than 15 years. When he introduced him at his confirmation hearing, Senator Danforth described Mr. Cole as someone without an ideological or political agenda. He also wrote to the committee: Jim is a ``lawyer's lawyer.'' He is exceedingly knowledgeable, especially on matters relating to legal and business ethics, public integrity and compliance with government regulations. He is highly regarded . . . as a skillful litigator. As his resume demonstrates, he has long and deep experience in the Department of Justice. I agree. Jim Cole served as a career prosecutor at the Justice Department for a dozen years and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and toughness. He has demonstrated that he understands the issues of crime and national security that are at the center of the Deputy Attorney General's job. Nothing suggests that he is anything other than a steadfast defender of American safety. We have received numerous letters of support for Mr. Cole's nomination, including letters from many former Republican public officials. I put several of those letters in the Record last month. The Senate should have heeded those recommendations as well as the advice of former Deputy Attorneys General of the United States who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. They wrote to us last December to urge the Senate to consider Mr. Cole's nomination without delay--last December--pointing out that the Deputy Attorney General is ``the chief operating officer of the Department of Justice, supervising its day-to-day operations'' and that ``the Deputy is also a key member of the president's national security team, a function that has grown in importance and complexity in the years since the terror attacks of September 11.'' They were right. The Senate was wrong to filibuster this nomination. The Senate has the opportunity today to finally confirm this good man and public servant. I trust this institution will take that opportunity. Incredibly, the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General was subjected to a partisan filibuster for over three more months while the country faces concerns about terrorism in the aftermath of the President's successful operation against al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. It is hard for me to understand how, at a time when experts are concerned that al-Qaida will seek reprisals, some in the Senate have delayed action to ensure that President Obama has his full national security team in place. No matter who is President, we should want that President to have their national security team in place for the good of all Americans. In the aftermath of 9/11, Senate Democrats expedited law enforcement and national security nominations, confirming an additional 58 officials to posts at the Justice Department before the end of 2001. The Senate should have done the same with the nomination of Jim Cole. Senate Republicans should have treated Mr. Cole's nomination with the same urgency and seriousness with which Senate Democrats treated all four of the Deputy Attorneys General who served under President Bush. All four were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote an average of 21 days after they were reported by the Judiciary Committee. No Deputy Attorney General nomination had ever been subjected to a filibuster before. That is what Senator Republicans did this year. It was wrong. In addition, Senate Republicans have blocked votes on the nomination of Lisa Monaco to head the National Security Division at the Justice Department, another key national security position. Her nomination has been blocked even though it was considered at hearings and reported unanimously, not only by the Judiciary Committee but also by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She was reported unanimously by all Democrats and all Republicans in two key committees. Senator Grassley, Senator Chambliss and all the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted for her. To have an almost 2-month delay has been incredible--she should have been confirmed right after her nomination was reported by the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Lisa Monaco's nomination has long been supported by former Justice Department officials, including former Attorney General Mukasey, who served during President George W. Bush's administration. He wrote: Based on my meetings and conversations with Ms. Monaco, I believe that she has both sound judgment and a keen understanding of national security law. Which is to say, she understands both the stakes and the rules. The Monaco nomination to head the National Security Division at the Justice Department should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day recess. I have little doubt that she will be confirmed overwhelmingly. But the almost two-month delay is not excused by voting for her confirmation now. The National Security Division has been without her leadership. The national security team has been without another key member. Virginia Seitz is another superbly qualified nominee with bipartisan support who should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day recess, but whose nomination has been blocked from consideration by Senate Republicans. A Rhodes Scholar and former Supreme Court clerk, Ms. Seitz has received support for her nomination from some of the most preeminent lawyers in the country, including many who have served in Republican administrations. This nomination was also reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. All Republican members and all Democratic members voted for her. Then Senate Republicans turned around and blocked her confirmation. I have seen the crocodile tears of some over the last few days as they lament the lack of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion on how the War Powers Act applied to the NATO-led operation in Libya. It is Senate Republicans who are responsible for having delayed and blocked the Office of Legal Counsel from having its Assistant Attorney General in place. Today, after 7 weeks of obstruction, the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Virginia Seitz. The treatment of these nominees is now carrying over to other nominations and important legislative initiatives, as well. Just last week we witnessed for the first time since the infamous partisan vote on the nomination of Ronnie White of Missouri, the spectacle of Republican Senators who had voted in favor of a nomination in committee switching to vote against the nomination when considered by the Senate. We have seen Republican Senators, who in consultation with the White House and Judiciary Committee approved a judicial nominee, flipping to oppose the nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered two national security bills during the last 2 weeks. Both times Republican Senators professed to support the legislation as they voted against it. The most critical and time sensitive is the bill before the Senate to authorize a limited extension of the term of service of FBI Director Robert Mueller, as the President has requested. The President made his request more than 6 weeks ago in light of ``the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies.'' He asked us ``to join together in extending [Director Mueller's] leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and security.'' Rather than join together as Senate Democrats did with the President following 9/11, 7 of the 8 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee opposed the bill. We have to consider and pass that bill without delay. Both the House and Senate have to pass it before the August recess. With the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and in the face of continuing threats in the wake of the President's recent, successful operation against Osama bin Laden, we need the continuity and stability of having FBI Director Mueller in place. Without enactment of this legislation, he will not be. He will be forced from that critical post on August 3. I urge all Senators, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, to join together for the good of the country to take quick action to pass the FBI extension, S. 1103. We cannot afford a repeat of the unnecessary delays that have held up these nominations finally considered today. I thank today's nominees for their dedication and look forward to working with them as they faithfully execute their important responsibilities at the Justice Department. I also thank their families for their patience and for the support they give these outstanding public servants. In my 37 years in the Senate I have never seen a time when so many good nominees are held up, even though eventually so many then go through unanimously. I wish Senators would stop and think for a moment: This is awfully hard on their spouses and their children. It is awfully hard among their friends who wonder, Is there something we don't know about? Why were they held up so long? We can all take our political positions--and should. We all vote--and should. But let's not take it out on the good Americans who want to serve their country, oftentimes at great sacrifice. Remember, we also take it out on their families. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not object. But insofar as many had planned to be here for the 12 o'clock scheduled votes, could the Senator from Florida tell me how long he wishes to take?

Mr. LEAHY. I will not object, Madam President.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a delight to call the Senate's attention to the record of 75 years of quality productions achieved by the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company as they celebrate this major milestone with their community and friends. Among its many accolades-- including the Moss Hart Award for Best Production in New England for ``Floyd Collins''--Weston's Playhouse has earned a national reputation as a professional theatre. As Vermont's oldest theater, and one of the 15 oldest theatre companies across the United States, the Weston Playhouse has entertained families and visitors from New England and beyond since its founding in 1935. Its first professional season in 1937 included the opening of Noel Coward's ``Hay Fever,'' featuring young actor Lloyd Bridges. Since then the Weston Playhouse has grown to include musicals and late-night entertainment, cradled in Weston's small village of 640 people. Consistent with Vermonters' willful determination and hard work, Weston's Playhouse Theatre Company endured a 1962 fire that destroyed the original playhouse building. Despite this hardship, the community pulled their resources together and continued to provide Vermonters and New England with quality theatre and musical experiences. Today the company serves 25,000 Vermonters and Vermont visitors each year with its devoted staff, talented artists, and dedicated board. The Weston Playhouse Theatre Company has routinely met their goals of making live theatre accessible and meaningful to a broad population of Vermonters. Resource support through the National Endowment for the Arts has allowed the playhouse to expand its offerings of cultural experiences to thousands of elementary, middle and high school aged children every year. Their outreach programs have promoted educational productions and have toured often throughout Vermont and New England while continuing to produce prestigious regional and world premieres. Marcelle and I have always enjoyed attending theatre productions in Vermont, and we have wonderful memories of the time we have spent with the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company, as well as of the wonderful people we have met at the theatre. It is important to our State that we continue to host diverse actors and actresses on Vermont's stages, enriching the lives of Vermonters across the State. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum, examined an original manuscript or composition, or disappeared into a performance as the lights dimmed-- and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result--knows the power and importance of these works in our lives. I am proud to join in honoring the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company for 75 wonderful years of achievements that have enriched our heritage and the quality of life in the marvelous Green Mountain State.

Mr. LEAHY

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