Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will stop businesses from deducting costs that result from their misconduct as a cost of doing business under our tax laws. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of a punitive damage award paid to a victim as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is wrong. It undermines one of the primary deterrent functions of our civil justice system, and American taxpayers should not subsidize this misconduct. Punitive damage awards serve in part to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Our legal history contains prominent examples of corporate misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and by virtue of our civil justice system was not only punished, but led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. The justice system has and will continue to encourage the positive changes that cannot be brought about by regulation alone. But our current tax laws work against the well-established role of the justice system as a backstop to health and safety regulation. One year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 Americans and leading to the worst oil spill in American history. Just over a year ago, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In both of these cases, I expect that all Americans, and particularly the family members of the victims, would be shocked to learn that any punitive damages that may result from these events will amount to a tax break for the corporations responsible. I was disgusted to learn that Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, recently announced that it was giving ``safety bonuses'' to its executives. Maybe that company believes that the American people have forgotten about this tragedy. I have met with the families of the 11 men killed, and I will never forget them. The tax treatment that the responsible companies will receive if we do not act will just add insult to injury. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989. I have chaired several hearings on Exxon's misconduct, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. A jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions, which devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. For more than a decade Exxon fought this measure of accountability all the way to the United States Supreme Court. A divided Supreme Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages. I support Senator Whitehouse's wise legislation to overturn that Supreme Court decision, but some in Congress do not want corporate accountability. If we cannot muster the votes to make corporations that engage in such extreme misconduct accountable, we need to at least stop subsidizing it through our tax laws. Like so many Americans, I am weary of the preferential treatment that large corporations obtain at virtually every turn. It is disheartening to hear reports about enormously profitable corporations paying lower income tax rates than middle class American workers by exploiting loopholes or sheltering profits in foreign countries. It is unconscionable that big oil companies continue to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars each year, especially when Americans are facing increasingly high gasoline prices. I share the frustration of so many Americans who are making great sacrifices, yet who are not seeing their sacrifices shared by the most powerful in our society. As we approach the national tax filing deadline, I expect most Americans would agree that this punitive damages tax deduction is not only bad tax policy, but offensive to our basic notions of justice and fair play. In his fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations, President Obama and his administration requested an end to this deduction in the tax code. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so will result in increased revenues of $315 million over 10 years. As we collectively work to reduce the Federal deficit, it is important to recognize that increasing revenues will play an important part in this effort; particularly when those revenues are lost to a policy that is without any defensible justification. I hope all Senators will join me to protect American taxpayers. This legislation should be part of our bipartisan fight to reduce the national debt. When corporate wrongdoers can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. These difficult financial times require us to close irresponsible tax loopholes. We can start with this one, which treats corporate misconduct as a cost of doing business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we continue to work to bring down the number of judicial vacancies that have remained at historically alarming levels for the last 3 years. One in every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant as judicial vacancies stand at 96. I thank the majority leader for scheduling votes on two more judicial emergency vacancies. Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a judgeship in the Southern District of New York and John Kronstadt to fill a judgeship in the Central District of California. I believe they both could be confirmed unanimously. They were reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously more than one month ago. With cooperation from both sides of the aisle, the Senate could consider many more of the 17 judicial nominees currently ready for final action, and could do so before the Senate takes its Easter recess at the end of this week. Doing so would fulfill our responsibility to help address the vacancies crisis that puts at serious risk the ability of Americans to get a fair and timely hearing for their cases in Federal court. All 17 of the judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar were reported by a majority of the Judiciary Committee after members had an opportunity to review thoroughly extensive materials provided in response to our questionnaire, to question the nominees at a hearing, and to send written follow-up questions to the nominees. All of them are ready for final Senate action. With Federal judicial vacancies continuing to hover around 100, we should act responsibly by voting promptly on these nominations. Two of the nominees currently awaiting a Senate vote have twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and twice reported with strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Michael Simon to fill an emergency vacancy on the district court in Oregon. Two of the nominations have been reported favorably by the committee three times-- that of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit and that of Jack McConnell, reported with bipartisan support to fill a vacancy on the District of Rhode Island. Another currently pending nomination has been reported favorably four times, that of Judge Edward Chen to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern District of California. All of these nominations have long been ready for a Senate vote. So are nominations now pending to fill a judicial vacancy on the DC Circuit, judicial emergency vacancies in Tennessee, Florida and another in New York, two vacancies in Virginia, two vacancies in New Jersey, another vacancy in New York, and a vacancy on the district court for the Northern Mariana Islands. It is actually a sign of progress that we are today proceeding to confirm two judicial nominees reported last month. I hope that we can work to restore regular order in considering judicial nominations and that, at a minimum, the Senate will be allowed to proceed before the recess to confirm those judicial nominations reported with bipartisan support. All 17 of the pending nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All should have an up or down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and without weeks of needless delay. If we join together we can make real progress by considering all of the judicial nominations now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the Senate were to take favorable action on the 17 judicial nominations currently pending and awaiting final Senate consideration, we could reduce vacancies to below 90. In fact, we would be able to reduce them below 80 for the first time since July 2009. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first 2 years, judicial vacancies still number 96 more than 26 months into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but we have barely kept up with attrition. Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate-- which was reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term, to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--has now swelled to nearly 11 percent. The two nominations we consider today demonstrate that there is no reason the Senate cannot consider and confirm the President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. Both nominees show President Obama's commitment to working with home State Senators to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. I thank Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer and Gillibrand for working with President Obama on these nominations and congratulate them along with the nominees and their families. Judge John Kronstadt has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Central District of California. He currently serves on the Los Angeles County Superior Court and previously spent 24 years in private practice. Judge Kronstadt earned his B.A. from Cornell University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously on March 10. Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of New York. An attorney for the past 30 years, Mr. Briccetti has spent time in private practice and as a Federal prosecutor. He was unanimously rated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary as well qualified to serve on the district court. Mr. Briccetti earned his B.A. from Columbia University and his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law. The Judiciary Committee also reported his nomination unanimously on March 10. I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I see him taking credit for what he calls ``our rapid pace.'' I am glad to see him echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been treated. We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations, bringing the vacancy rate down from 10 percent to just over 4 percent. We confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, well into President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 77 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmarks we set during the Bush administration. The Senate must do better. We must work together to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable.That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act. I hope that we will follow their advice and make progress to ensure that the Federal courts are able to function for all Americans. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will stop businesses from deducting costs that result from their misconduct as a cost of doing business under our tax laws. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of a punitive damage award paid to a victim as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is wrong. It undermines one of the primary deterrent functions of our civil justice system, and American taxpayers should not subsidize this misconduct. Punitive damage awards serve in part to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Our legal history contains prominent examples of corporate misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and by virtue of our civil justice system was not only punished, but led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. The justice system has and will continue to encourage the positive changes that cannot be brought about by regulation alone. But our current tax laws work against the well-established role of the justice system as a backstop to health and safety regulation. One year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 Americans and leading to the worst oil spill in American history. Just over a year ago, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In both of these cases, I expect that all Americans, and particularly the family members of the victims, would be shocked to learn that any punitive damages that may result from these events will amount to a tax break for the corporations responsible. I was disgusted to learn that Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, recently announced that it was giving ``safety bonuses'' to its executives. Maybe that company believes that the American people have forgotten about this tragedy. I have met with the families of the 11 men killed, and I will never forget them. The tax treatment that the responsible companies will receive if we do not act will just add insult to injury. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989. I have chaired several hearings on Exxon's misconduct, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. A jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions, which devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. For more than a decade Exxon fought this measure of accountability all the way to the United States Supreme Court. A divided Supreme Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages. I support Senator Whitehouse's wise legislation to overturn that Supreme Court decision, but some in Congress do not want corporate accountability. If we cannot muster the votes to make corporations that engage in such extreme misconduct accountable, we need to at least stop subsidizing it through our tax laws. Like so many Americans, I am weary of the preferential treatment that large corporations obtain at virtually every turn. It is disheartening to hear reports about enormously profitable corporations paying lower income tax rates than middle class American workers by exploiting loopholes or sheltering profits in foreign countries. It is unconscionable that big oil companies continue to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars each year, especially when Americans are facing increasingly high gasoline prices. I share the frustration of so many Americans who are making great sacrifices, yet who are not seeing their sacrifices shared by the most powerful in our society. As we approach the national tax filing deadline, I expect most Americans would agree that this punitive damages tax deduction is not only bad tax policy, but offensive to our basic notions of justice and fair play. In his fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations, President Obama and his administration requested an end to this deduction in the tax code. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so will result in increased revenues of $315 million over 10 years. As we collectively work to reduce the Federal deficit, it is important to recognize that increasing revenues will play an important part in this effort; particularly when those revenues are lost to a policy that is without any defensible justification. I hope all Senators will join me to protect American taxpayers. This legislation should be part of our bipartisan fight to reduce the national debt. When corporate wrongdoers can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. These difficult financial times require us to close irresponsible tax loopholes. We can start with this one, which treats corporate misconduct as a cost of doing business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Nation commemorates Equal Pay Day, an annual occasion that celebrates the gains that women have made in the workplace over the last century, but which also reminds us all that pay discrimination still exists in the United States. In today's economy, a troubling constant remains: women continue to earn less than men. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, women working full-time still make only 78 cents for every dollar working men receive. For minority women, this statistic becomes even more sobering. The U.S. Department of Labor also reports an increasing number of families where women are the head of the household, and correspondingly, the primary source of income. Despite the signs of economic recovery, many women and families continue to struggle to make ends meet. This issue is not one that just impacts one individual; it creates additional economic hardship for entire families. Vermont is a leader in the Nation on fair pay practices, and 8 years ago, the State acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits compensating women and men differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements, and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. Still, there is room for improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Vermont women working full-time earn wages amounting to 81.9 percent of what men earn. We must work harder to ensure that women are paid equal wages for equal work, across the country. The 1963 Equal Pay Act was enacted to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. While we have made progress, our work is not done. Hardworking women--and the American people--earned a long fought victory in early 2009, when President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision that rolled back years of progress to eliminate workplace discrimination. But the efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace continues. Two bills introduced today will help the United States reach that goal. These bills include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski and which I am proud to cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law; strengthens penalties for equal pay violations; and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support over a year ago, and deserves action in the Senate. The Fair Pay Act, which was introduced by Senator Harkin and which I am also proud to cosponsor, requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions, and to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap. Equal pay for equal work is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue; it is an American value. It is neither a private sector nor a public sector issue; it is a fundamental issue of fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one career path or level of education. The Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act, and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters, and all future generations of Americans, are not subject to the same discrimination that has plagued women for decades.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO cost estimate regarding S. 627 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to describe to the American people and actually Members of both bodies of Congress what is going to happen to our troops and their families if the collapse of the budget negotiations forces the government to shut down. We look at charts and graphs and numbers, but let's talk about the reality. While I am sure many understand that most government services will halt, it is also important to understand that some government operations will not shut down. In particular, our men and women on Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserves will continue to serve, but they will do so without pay. At a time when we ask them to fight two wars, to help stay the slaughter in Libya, and to keep peace around the world, another burden is going to be added to their shoulders: They are going to be asked to do it without a paycheck. Some of those in our Armed Forces--many of them--do not have savings to fall back on in hard times. Many family members are overseas fighting for America while their families are living back here. They are living paycheck to paycheck to pay for their groceries, to pay the car payments or the bills for a sick child or rent or a mortgage, while the other member of the family, the one who earns the paycheck, is over facing the possibility of dying on the field of battle. And now we tell them: Oh, stay right out there and fight. By golly, we are proud of you for fighting. Sorry we can't pay you. Because Members of Congress and the White House can't come together and deal, we can't pay you. You and your family may not be able to buy groceries, or your child may not get the medical care needed, but, boy, are we proud of you; if you get killed, we will give you a medal. Come on. Like so many Americans, some of those who serve in the military live paycheck to paycheck. They depend on their pay each month to put food on the table and keep a roof over their families' heads. Certainly, mortgage lenders are not known for accepting excuses when the monthly payments come due. But excuses are all that some Members of Congress can offer for why they will not come to the table and make sure our men and women in uniform get the pay they have earned. This is not bumper sticker sloganeering government. This is what happens. It is so easy for people to stand up and sanctimoniously state that we are doing this for the good of the country. You are doing it and you are harming the families of our men and women in harm's way. It is especially disturbing that the hard times that now are in prospect for our troops have been completely avoidable. The possibility of a government shutdown is very real because a relative few are willing to play politics and brinkmanship at a time when the public wants basic, unadorned statesmen. They want Republicans and Democrats to act as though they also have a stake in the course of our government. The American people want Congress to do its job, and that is certainly not too much to ask. Those who are insisting on their way or no way should pause to reflect on what their intransigence means to our troops and their families and, in fact, to every American. The decision to put politics ahead of the American people is reckless and imposes real hardship on real people. It is crueler still knowing that some of our troops, already facing fears of death or injury and sleepless nights in forward operating bases, must now add paying the electric bill and feeding their families to their list of daily worries. I have been with some of those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have enough on their minds. They have enough they face every single hour of every single day--especially every single night. They should not have the added worry of whether their families will be able to pay their bills. Naturally, as cochair of the National Guard caucus, I worry especially for the Vermont National Guard troops who are currently forward deployed to locations throughout the world. Many of them come from our small towns and cities in Vermont and they face these very fears. In shutting down the government, an ideologically motivated faction in Congress is willing to breach our most fundamental pact with these men and women. We have always said, ``protect our Nation overseas, and we will protect your loved ones at home.'' Who can justify violating that pact with the men and women in uniform? Some in Congress are already seeking cover, claiming they have put forward plans to fund the Pentagon and our troops. But, of course, even these transparent political ploys would not pay many of our intelligence personnel, our brave and dedicated forward deployed consular staff and officers and others--many of whom work side by side with our troops. Not to mention the vast number of individuals working in communities across the Nation to support our overseas operations. Every one of these dedicated public servants and every one of our troops deserves to be paid for a day's work. Our troops, their families, and those supporting them have enough to worry about without needlessly being pushed to the brink of a costly government shutdown. I hope that, as we sit here in our plush offices, with our staff and everything we ever want, being well paid as Members of Congress, we let the reality sink in. The distinguished Presiding Officer has spoken about this many times. The reality is that men and women--the families throughout our country--are being severely hurt. Let's not forget that. Mr. President, we are seeing some in the other body, reacting to the ire of a minority of vocal, anti-government extremists who make no secret of their desire to shut down the government even while complaining that the government is not doing enough for them, proposing reckless cuts in programs that are vital to job creation and to national security. Many in the other party are masters at blaming others for a budget deficit and debt they created during the last administration--self- proclaimed fiscal conservatives who, in a few short years, racked up a trillion dollar deficit by borrowing the money for two wars, something that was never done before in the history of this country. Their idea was to cut taxes for millionaires, cut taxes for companies that ship jobs overseas, cut corporate taxes, and borrow the money to pay for the wars while causing the debt to skyrocket. They burned through the Clinton era surpluses and embarked on a massive borrowing binge--and they think they can lecture us on fiscal conservatism. Any mention of the consequences of what is being proposed is carefully avoided, but the American people should know the facts. There are many examples. The catastrophic earthquake and tsunami and the nuclear crisis in Japan, as well as the popular uprisings and violence in North Africa and the Middle East, demonstrate once again the essential role that our Embassies and consulates and our foreign assistance programs play in protecting the safety and security of American citizens and our allies. Our Republican friends have been urging drastic cuts to our international operations and programs, even though they, in total, comprise a mere 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--and have no appreciable impact on the deficit. Yet when a natural or manmade disaster occurs overseas and Americans are affected or an American is arrested and locked in a foreign jail, those same critics of these programs immediately expect the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to leap into action. In Egypt alone, at least 75,000 Americans were living, working and studying when that country erupted in civic unrest and airports and train stations were jammed with throngs of frantic people trying to leave the country. Thousands of Americans turned to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Our consular officers worked around the clock to help them, including a group of Vermont students, one of whom had lost his passport. Just last week, another Vermont student was released after 2 weeks in a Syrian jail, thanks to the persistent diplomacy of U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford and other U.S. Embassy officials, as well as the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, who helped convince his government that a mistake had been made. My office worked closely with them, as is customary when a constituent is in trouble in a foreign land. As every Member of Congress knows, there are countless examples such as these, involving Americans from every State, which are not reported in the press. As the international affairs budget faces deep cuts in fiscal year 2011 and in the future, it is important to be reminded of the invaluable assistance provided by the State Department and USAID to American citizens abroad, their families in the United States, and others impacted by foreign crises. It is also important to be reminded that Members of Congress and the American people cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand support drastic budget cuts, and at the same time expect the agencies that are losing personnel and resources to be able to respond as needed to help Americans when disaster strikes. Today the crushing demands on the State Department for American citizen services are unprecedented. In the past month alone, the Department has issued travel warnings and alerts related to political unrest or natural disasters in six countries. Americans rely on their State Department for current, accurate travel information. Since the earthquake and tsunami, U.S. consular officers in Japan and Washington have worked ceaselessly to assist Americans in Japan, and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo deployed teams to the Tohoku region to locate American citizens and help them find transportation away from the devastated areas. USAID sent search and rescue teams and emergency response experts to Japan. They were doing the same thing a little over 1 year ago in Haiti, after the catastrophic earthquake there. As much of the world's attention has shifted to Libya, the State Department continues to closely monitor the situation in Japan, including the impact of the damage to the nuclear powerplant, and to provide updated detailed travel warnings and information for Americans considering travel to Japan. Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, to prevent chaos and suffering at borders and surrounding areas, the State Department and the USAID have provided food, water, and other humanitarian aid to refugees and internally displaced persons. It is regrettable that despite these realities, so many in Congress support reckless cuts in operations for the State Department and USAID. It makes no sense to wait until these agencies can no longer function effectively before we recognize that we cannot ignore events beyond our borders, and that the services Americans expect from their government cost money. In fact, the cost of everything--fuel, transport, rent, communications, and security--is going up, while budgets are being cut. An unfortunate trend is taking hold here. Demand cuts in spending and in the taxes to pay for it, while expecting that it will not affect the government services you take for granted. The world is a dangerous place and unanticipated disasters of every kind are occurring with remarkable frequency. American citizens are spread far and wide around the globe, and they rely on the State Department and USAID to protect their livelihoods and their security every day. For that, the people who serve in these agencies deserve our thanks and our support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I urge rejection of all of the amendments offered today that would gut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce our Clean Air Act. It has been proven time and time again that we can have both a clean environment and grow our economy. In fact without a clean environment, it is more difficult for us to grow the economy. Without the Clean Air Act we would be spending trillions of dollars more on health care costs and lost work days. Over its 40 years the Clean Air Act has been one of the world's most successful environmental and health protection laws reducing exposure to pollutants such as lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, smog-forming gases, and mercury and other heavy metals and toxics. Thanks to the Clean Air Act millions of lives have been saved by preventing premature deaths, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening illnesses. But even after 40 years of action, pollution in many areas of the country still violates basic health standards, putting tens of millions of Americans' lives at risk. In Vermont, while we don't have any coal-fired powerplants, we are still the victims of their pollution as it travels by wind across our borders into the Green Mountain State. Throughout the Nation, hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer every year from illnesses linked to emissions from powerplants, refineries and other large sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Yet there are some powerful special interests and some Members of this body who would like to strip the EPA of its authorities to enforce the Clean Air Act because they reject the notion that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and harmful to public health, or they believe that we just cannot afford clean air. Methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons and other compounds are the ingredients of a pollutant cocktail forced on many millions of Americans. The Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act is ``unambiguous'' and that greenhouse gases, such as those I just mentioned, are ``without a doubt'' air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA is required to regulate these emissions since they endanger public health. The Supreme Court has given the EPA little choice, and the science is clear they must act. The McConnell amendment would have politics, not science, decide which pollutants are hazardous and which pollutants should be regulated. If politics had been allowed to trump the compelling scientific evidence, we may have never phased lead out of gasoline, or reduced ozone-depleting chemicals, or tackled acid rain. Over the years powerful special interests have sought to block EPA's actions on all of these issues, arguing that the science was weak and the costs unjustified. Once again they are crying wolf and trotting out the same discredited arguments to fight greenhouse gas regulations today. In enforcing the Clean Air Act, EPA is doing the job that Congress mandated decades ago. These amendments that attack the Clean Air Act would force the EPA to turn a blind eye toward polluters, the same polluters that are spending millions of dollars to lobby against the Clean Air Act. I urge every Senator to talk to the parents and grandparents of children in their home States who suffer from asthma. Take the time to hear about the trips they have had to take to the emergency room and about the countless hospital stays because of the air they breathe, something so many of us take for granted. These attacks on the Clean Air Act would also lead to more heart attacks, more strokes, more cancer, and shorter lives. I arrived in the Senate just 5 years after the Clean Air Act of 1970 was introduced and unanimously passed by the Senate. I have supported efforts to reduce life-threatening pollutants, such as lead and mercury. And I will support efforts to reduce hazardous greenhouse gases, just as a majority of Americans do. The truth is that the McConnell amendment and the other EPA amendments we will vote on today would hurt public health, cost consumers more, stifle the invention of new pollution prevention technologies which grow the U.S. economy and jobs, and further slow our transition to renewable energy sources. Since passage of the Clean Air Act, the benefits have proved to be 42 times greater than the estimated costs of cleaning our air. Our GDP has tripled since the Clean Air Act was passed. In Vermont we are fortunate to have two of the preeminent innovation companies in the world, IBM and GE. These corporations and others like them rely on regulatory certainty when deciding what investments to make in research, technology, and expansion into new markets. These attempts to strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would send the wrong market signals to our innovators. Myths are myths and facts are facts, and the fact is that pollution standards are by law both achievable and affordable. They encourage energy efficiency, which reduces energy demand, reduces fuel consumption, drives down our dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil, reduces operating costs, and lowers energy prices. In fact the most prevalent compliance response to EPA's carbon regulations will be using current and newly developed technologies to increase a plant's energy efficiency. The McConnell amendment would render meaningless the progress that we have already made to invent new products that consume less fuel, pollute less, and create American jobs--jobs that cannot be sent overseas. The McConnell amendment would penalize those pioneering facilities that have already taken steps to clean up industry, and reward those who have seen these new standards coming for years, but have chosen to do nothing to protect the public. Instead they now pressure Congress to let them off the hook and to pass the long term health costs along to the public. The evidence in favor of embracing a cleaner future is clear. We have an opportunity to encourage our innovative companies to be global leaders in new clean energy technologies that will create jobs here in America. We must stop supporting the dirty, outdated and inefficient technologies of the past. By eliminating EPA's ability to impose scientific, health-based limits on carbon pollution from the Nation's largest polluters, the McConnell amendment and the other amendments that attack the EPA would only end up taking a hefty toll in Americans' health and costing consumers more by increasing oil consumption and forcing them to pay higher fuel costs. We need to support efforts for clean air and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Lives are at stake. In 2010, in just 1 year, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000. The air we breathe is the heritage of the American people, not the property of the big polluters. The people of this great country deserve better, and they want clean air as well for their children and grandchildren. That is why I urge defeat of these amendments to gut enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Stand up for a future with clean energy and economic growth that depends on a clean environment. Take a stand for the American innovation that will create more American jobs and technology to protect the public's health and the environment. And help more Americans live longer lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say a few words about a situation in Syria that is of particular concern to me and people of my State. Going on 2 weeks ago, a young Middlebury College student, Pathik ``Tik'' Root, disappeared in Damascus, Syria, where he was studying Arabic. As anyone who is following recent events in Syria knows, there have been large public demonstrations, some of which have resulted in arrests and casualties. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. Embassy Damascus and the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, it was determined that Tik had been arrested and is being held in a Syrian jail. By all accounts, it appears that Tik was arrested simply because he was taking photographs at one of the demonstrations. As an avid photographer myself, I would hope that the Syrian Government recognizes the innocent conduct of a young, curious American student who is fascinated, as we all are, by the extraordinary events taking place across North Africa and the Middle East. I and my staff have had multiple conversations with Tik's father, with Ambassador Moustapha, with U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford, and other State Department officials about Tik's situation. We are optimistic that he will be released, because he was doing nothing wrong and at most he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But so far, no one from the American consulate in Damascus has been allowed to see Tik, which is unacceptable. Our representatives in Damascus should be given immediate access to him--today--to ensure that he is in good health and being treated humanely. I know I speak not only for myself but also for Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch, in urging the Syrian authorities to release Tik and allow him to return home. This is not a time to be confusing a young American college student with the popular forces that are calling for political change in Syria. Tik is an innocent 21-year-old who poses no threat whatsoever to the Syrian Government, but his continued detention will only further complicate our already difficult relations with Syria.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a subject that I have discussed before concerning Guatemala's struggling justice system. In a country facing a growing threat from Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations that have infiltrated every facet of society, a police force that is notoriously corrupt and ineffective at investigating crime, a military hierarchy that continues to obstruct justice, and a conviction rate in the courts of 2 percent, the situation could hardly be grimmer. Violent crime and smuggling have skyrocketed, impunity is the norm, and reports indicate that many people in Guatemala feel less safe today than even during the 30-year internal armed conflict. There are credible reports of police collusion with the drug cartels, and threats and assassinations of indigenous activists who have petitioned for land reform. And a decade and a half after the signing of the Peace Accords, the military hierarchy, current and former, uses threats and intimidation of victims, witnesses, judges and prosecutors to avoid accountability for past crimes against humanity. I and others were encouraged last year when President Colom appointed respected human rights activist Helen Mack to assess the weaknesses of the police and to recommend reforms. Ms. Mack has widespread credibility and could be relied on to conduct a fair, thorough review. But any recommendations for reform are only as good as the funding and political will to implement them, which is too often lacking in Guatemala. Presidential elections are scheduled for September. Unless the current government or its successor is prepared to carry the police reform process forward, not only will a critical opportunity have been missed but the security challenges facing Guatemala will worsen further. Helen Mack accepted her assignment knowing it would be dangerous. Her sister Myrna, an anthropologist who had documented the horrific abuses of Mayan peasants by the Guatemalan army, was assassinated by the army in 1990. Helen also knew that trying to reform the police would ultimately be a wasted exercise if her recommendations end up collecting dust on a shelf. Yet she has persevered, and it is for the good of all Guatemalans. Other victims of torture, disappearance, and murder during the internal armed conflict are still waiting for justice. When successive governments failed to hold the military accountable, some victims or their families turned to the courts, only to be stymied at every turn. The courts have issued contradictory rulings, reversed themselves and each other, and cases have dragged on for years. It makes a mockery of justice and of officials who are responsible for upholding the rule of law. No democracy can survive without a functioning justice system, including a professional, trusted, well financed police force. The effectiveness of the police in preventing and controlling crime depends on the relationship between the police and the public. If the police force is to regain the confidence and trust of Guatemalans, particularly Guatemala's indigenous population which has traditionally been the target of discrimination and abuse, a concerted and unwavering effort must be made to ensure the professionalism, transparency and accountability of the police. It should be a priority. Ms. Mack's courageous efforts, and the efforts of others who have risked their lives in support of justice and a better life for the millions of Guatemalans living in poverty, deserve the unequivocal support of the Guatemalan Government and the Government of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their work. The distinguished senior Senator from New York is on the floor. I am delighted to see him, and I would ask, when he is finished, if he asks for a quorum call, if he might ask to have it charged against both sides equally. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for scheduling this confirmation vote today. Mae D'Agostino has the distinction of being the first newly considered judicial nominee this year. Every judicial confirmation thus far this year was of a nominee who had been unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee last year. Each of those nominations could, and in my view should, have been considered and confirmed last year before the Senate adjourned in December. Ms. D'Agostino appeared at a hearing in February, and her nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern District of New York was reported unanimously earlier this month. Now she is being considered by the Senate. This is an example of what we can do. It should not take weeks and months for the Senate to consider nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee, particularly those who are consensus nominees. Ms. D'Agostino is a native of Albany, New York, and has spent her career in private practice in the Albany area. In addition to her legal practice, Ms. D'Agostino has taught at Albany Law School and the Junior College of Albany. Once confirmed, Ms. D'Agostino will be the only woman currently serving, and only the second woman ever to serve, on the Northern District of New York Federal bench. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for working with the President on this nomination. They have worked hard throughout the process. In addition to Ms. D'Agostino, there remain nine other judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration after having been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Two of those nominations have twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and twice reported with strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Michael Simon to fill a vacancy on the district court in Oregon. Another has been reported favorably four times Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California. So in addition to the D'Agostino nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in New York, there are nominees ready to be confirmed to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in California, another judicial emergency vacancy in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, vacancies on the Federal and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. I expect the Judiciary Committee will consider and report additional judicial nominations this week, adding to the number of judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. Recently the Judicial Conference of the United States reaffirmed its recommendation that two additional judgeships be added to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit given its workload. That is in addition to the two existing vacancies. Regrettably, the unnecessary delays in considering Susan Carney's nomination to fill one of those vacancies has left that court and the people it serves without much- needed resources. It has also given right-wing pressure groups the chance to launch unfounded attacks on Ms. Carney full of false accusations and innuendo. This is a nominee who had the support of a majority of the Republicans on the committee, and who should have been considered and confirmed last year. The Senate should take up her nomination, debate it and vote on it rather than allowing her record to be smeared. That would be the fair thing to do and the right thing to do. I hope we will do so soon. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays in filling vacancies is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion. Regrettably, rather than reduce vacancies dramatically as we did during the Bush administration, the Senate has reversed course in the first 26 months of the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies first topping 90 in August 2009 and staying above that level since. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years, when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first 2 years, today judicial vacancies still number 96. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but they have not been. We have not even kept up with the rate of attrition, putting at risk the ability of Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevent people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others-- including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act. We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner as the nomination before us today demonstrates. President Obama has worked with the New York home State Senators to identify this nominee, just as he has worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. All the nominations on the Executive Calendar have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. During President Bush's first term, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office and by this date in President Bush's third year had confirmed 112. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 74 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration. I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I am encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' I am glad to see him echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been treated. The committee's ranking Republican often points to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation with the White House by some home State Senators. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have before us. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate. I hope that it is a sign of progress that we are today proceeding to confirm a judicial nominee considered this year and reported earlier this month and hope that we can continue to work to restore regular order in considering judicial nominations. However, I would observe that it is nearly April and every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long. I hope we can join together to make real progress. I congratulate Mae D'Agostino and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the leader withhold?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for scheduling this confirmation vote today. I have been talking about this nomination since last year. Amy Jackson is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the District Court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital, for some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it was one of two nominations to that court unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action, despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts. The President has had to renominate Ms. Jackson, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider her and now, finally, the Senate is being allowed to consider her. I have spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous occasions, including during the last 2 weeks. I have noted the criticism from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the District Court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have acted before adjourning last year in response to his request. All four nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. They were needlessly delayed. When the Senate was allowed to consider and confirm Judge Boasberg on Monday, I, again, raised the question of the refusal on the other side of the aisle to proceed to consider the Jackson nomination. Ms. Jackson's nomination was reported without opposition by the Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. Ms. Jackson is a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and experience who the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association gave its highest peer review rating of ``well qualified.'' Representative Norton has called her one of the top practitioners in one of the District's top law firms and given her a strong endorsement. I expect this will be another of the nominations that has been needlessly delayed and then confirmed unanimously or nearly so. In addition to the Jackson nomination, there remain 10 additional judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration after having been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Also reported from the Judiciary Committee and before the Senate are nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, two judicial emergency vacancies in California and vacancies on the Federal and D.C. Circuit, in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act. Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion. When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging caseload'' of the Court ``includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. LEAHY. Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than four percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the vacancies down significantly. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but they have not been. Unlike in the first 2 years of President Bush's first term when with a Democratic majority the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60, judicial vacancies topped 90 in August 2009 and have remained above that level ever since. After tonight's confirmation, they will still number 95, putting at risk the ability of Americans to have a fair hearing in Court. The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable. We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with Democratic and Republican home state Senators to identify superbly qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. During President Bush's first term, his first four tumultuous years in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office and by this date in President Bush's third year had confirmed 110. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 73 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first three years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration. I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation by certain home state Senators with the White House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have before us. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate. In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long. I thank Chief Judge Lamberth for his efforts on behalf of his Court, on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, and on behalf of our justice system. The American justice system is not some discretionary luxury. It serves an essential function in our democracy. I thank all the women and men who work every day in our courts to guarantee justice for the American people. I am glad that Amy Jackson's wait is finally over and congratulate her and her family on her confirmation. Exhibit 1 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, November 4, 2010. Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the vacancies that exist at our Court. Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M. Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31, 2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its 15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this situation already is being felt and will only increase over time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly handles includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance. A large number of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time and attention from each of our judges. Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary. Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson) have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported out of Committee. We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve. Sincerely, Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the sixth continuing resolution of the fiscal year. While this is not a record for Congress, it is certainly a number far higher than is appropriate for responsibly funding the government. I want to take a minute to explain how we got to this point. Last December the Senate Appropriations Committee prepared an omnibus spending bill to fund the government for fiscal year 2011. The omnibus was not a perfect bill, but it was based on hundreds of hours of hearings, committee meetings and bipartisan negotiations. Members of both parties had input into the process and content of the bill. So it was perplexing that in the waning hours of the 111th Congress our friends on the other side of the aisle walked away from this bill. Because any action in the Senate is now subject to the approval of a supermajority we were unable to pass the omnibus and instead passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the beginning of March. I fully understand concerns about using an omnibus as a method for budgeting; it is far from a perfect mechanism. But the alternative is to operate the way we have for the last 6 months, stringing along stop- gap measures that undermine Federal programs and agencies. The impact of uncertain budgeting is felt at the State and local levels as well. I hear on a daily basis from Vermonters about Head Start programs that are considering layoffs, college students concerned whether they will have to take out more loans if Pell grants are cut, and hundreds of others worried about the future of home heating, housing and basic safety net programs for many who are struggling mightily right now. It is critical that rather than muddling along with more short-term continuing resolutions that we pass a responsible budget plan for the remainder of the year. The current 3-week CR under consideration is an example of how this process does not serve us well. Halfway through the fiscal year we are debating significant cuts to infrastructure funding like Save America's Treasures, the Public Television Facilities Program and to efforts that provide basic services such as rural housing assistance to Vermonters. I am extremely disappointed with the elimination of the Save America's Treasures program. It has preserved hundreds of historic landmarks throughout the country, a number of which are iconic Vermont structures, valuable parts of my State's identity. Another cut that is disappointing is the elimination of funding in fiscal year 2011 for the International Fund for Ireland. It is an unfortunate twist that on St. Patrick's Day, Congress is poised to pull the plug on this program of assistance for the most economically depressed communities of Northern Ireland. These are not abstract cuts. The elimination and reduction of this funding will have a measurable and negative impact on job creation and the daily lives of Americans. While I believe these cuts are misguided, I will reluctantly support the continuing resolution. I do not make this decision lightly or with any enthusiasm. Unfortunately this bill is the only option available to keep the government running and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown would cause severe hardship for countless people, and the President and Congress must use this time to find an acceptable compromise to fund the government through the remainder of the year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week, a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2011, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. This bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA. This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs. 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 earlier this week 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 these reforms. In addition, twelve of the agencies surveyed by the National Security Archive had pending FOIA requests that were more than 6 years old, according to the report. Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply unacceptable. And that is why we are introducing this bill. The commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also study why Federal agencies are more and more relying on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public. In addition, the commission will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The commission will be made up of government and non-governmental representatives with a broad range of experience related to handling FOIA requests. Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. Indeed, we need look no further than the unfolding and historic events in the Middle East and North Africa for evidence of the truth of these words. The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free. I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Whitehouse who has cosponsored this bill. I urge all Senators to support the Faster FOIA Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act. This bill does one simple thing: It makes the EB-5 regional center program permanent. The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been highly successful since its inception in 1992, but it has always lacked the security of assured continuity. Extending the program by a few years at a time hampers the growth of the program and creates a disincentive for immigrant investors to bring their capital investments to the United States. EB-5 regional center programs have drawn jobs and millions of investment dollars to struggling communities and regions of our country. We can expand these job-creating programs and allow new regional centers to compete for investments with quality projects--if the EB-5 authorization is made permanent in law. The State of Vermont and Vermont entrepreneurs recognized the potential of this program early on, and Vermont gained regional center status in 1997. Our State and the Vermont entrepreneurs who took advantage of the regional center planned their projects with great care. As a result, both the State and our entrepreneurs have successfully attracted investors and created jobs. Other states have taken note of Vermont's success, and today there are now about 135 designated regional center programs across the country, which are creating jobs in States like Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, and New York, to name just a few. A regional center program is an economic engine for the state or region in which it is located. In a small state like Vermont, the economic activity generated by EB-5 projects at resorts like Jay Peak and Sugarbush has created direct jobs in those communities. Some of those jobs are for the construction and expansion phase, and others are for long-term employees of the resorts. These resort expansions bring more tourists to Vermont to enjoy skiing and summertime activities. Then there are the multiplier effects of these projects. Our visitors spend money while skiing and touring Vermont, supporting other Vermont businesses with every purchase they make. The economic activity is not limited to tourism, and there are other innovative projects in the pipeline in Vermont--projects like biotechnology; water purification; and manufacturing. Because the entire State of Vermont is a designated regional center, there is great potential for diversity both in terms of projects and geographic location. The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within a Regional Center, and they independently apply for EB-5 visas. If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, USCIS, foreign investors are granted conditional 2-year green cards. After 2 years, these investors must provide proof that they have created at least 10 jobs as a result of their investments, and that they have met additional investment requirements set by USCIS. The Federal Government authorizes approximately 388,000 green cards each year. Out of that number, only 10,000 annually are reserved for the EB-5 program. The vast majority of the green cards issued by our Government are family-based and available to anyone who meets the admissibility criteria, irrespective of personal wealth. It is true that this program requires a significant up-front investment from a prospective immigrant, but that does not disadvantage others who wish to become permanent residents. Most importantly, that investment directly benefits American communities and workers at no cost to American taxpayers. Similar programs have long yielded extraordinary economic benefits for the people of Canada, Australia and other countries. There is virtually no substantive opposition to the EB-5 program. Most elected officials will agree that creating jobs and capital investment is a good, bipartisan goal. The bill I introduce today makes the program permanent, but I am also working on a broader package of improvements to the EB-5 program to modernize it and ensure it operates efficiently, and as Congress intended. We must make sure that the immigration agency has the tools it needs to keep the program free from fraud and abuse. We must offer stakeholders an efficient process with fair standards so that they have confidence in the program. I am developing legislation in consultation with stakeholders and agency officials to make changes that will bring about lasting improvements for everyone involved. The EB-5 regional center program is one small corner of our overall immigration system--and it is one that generates tangible, ongoing economic benefits for Americans in the form of jobs and capital investment in local communities. It is an American success story, and we can build on its success with a continuing charter, with careful cultivation, and with appropriate oversight. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week, a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2011, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. This bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA. This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs. 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 earlier this week 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 these reforms. In addition, twelve of the agencies surveyed by the National Security Archive had pending FOIA requests that were more than 6 years old, according to the report. Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply unacceptable. And that is why we are introducing this bill. The commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also study why Federal agencies are more and more relying on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public. In addition, the commission will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The commission will be made up of government and non-governmental representatives with a broad range of experience related to handling FOIA requests. Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. Indeed, we need look no further than the unfolding and historic events in the Middle East and North Africa for evidence of the truth of these words. The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free. I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Whitehouse who has cosponsored this bill. I urge all Senators to support the Faster FOIA Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act. This bill does one simple thing: It makes the EB-5 regional center program permanent. The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been highly successful since its inception in 1992, but it has always lacked the security of assured continuity. Extending the program by a few years at a time hampers the growth of the program and creates a disincentive for immigrant investors to bring their capital investments to the United States. EB-5 regional center programs have drawn jobs and millions of investment dollars to struggling communities and regions of our country. We can expand these job-creating programs and allow new regional centers to compete for investments with quality projects--if the EB-5 authorization is made permanent in law. The State of Vermont and Vermont entrepreneurs recognized the potential of this program early on, and Vermont gained regional center status in 1997. Our State and the Vermont entrepreneurs who took advantage of the regional center planned their projects with great care. As a result, both the State and our entrepreneurs have successfully attracted investors and created jobs. Other states have taken note of Vermont's success, and today there are now about 135 designated regional center programs across the country, which are creating jobs in States like Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, and New York, to name just a few. A regional center program is an economic engine for the state or region in which it is located. In a small state like Vermont, the economic activity generated by EB-5 projects at resorts like Jay Peak and Sugarbush has created direct jobs in those communities. Some of those jobs are for the construction and expansion phase, and others are for long-term employees of the resorts. These resort expansions bring more tourists to Vermont to enjoy skiing and summertime activities. Then there are the multiplier effects of these projects. Our visitors spend money while skiing and touring Vermont, supporting other Vermont businesses with every purchase they make. The economic activity is not limited to tourism, and there are other innovative projects in the pipeline in Vermont--projects like biotechnology; water purification; and manufacturing. Because the entire State of Vermont is a designated regional center, there is great potential for diversity both in terms of projects and geographic location. The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within a Regional Center, and they independently apply for EB-5 visas. If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, USCIS, foreign investors are granted conditional 2-year green cards. After 2 years, these investors must provide proof that they have created at least 10 jobs as a result of their investments, and that they have met additional investment requirements set by USCIS. The Federal Government authorizes approximately 388,000 green cards each year. Out of that number, only 10,000 annually are reserved for the EB-5 program. The vast majority of the green cards issued by our Government are family-based and available to anyone who meets the admissibility criteria, irrespective of personal wealth. It is true that this program requires a significant up-front investment from a prospective immigrant, but that does not disadvantage others who wish to become permanent residents. Most importantly, that investment directly benefits American communities and workers at no cost to American taxpayers. Similar programs have long yielded extraordinary economic benefits for the people of Canada, Australia and other countries. There is virtually no substantive opposition to the EB-5 program. Most elected officials will agree that creating jobs and capital investment is a good, bipartisan goal. The bill I introduce today makes the program permanent, but I am also working on a broader package of improvements to the EB-5 program to modernize it and ensure it operates efficiently, and as Congress intended. We must make sure that the immigration agency has the tools it needs to keep the program free from fraud and abuse. We must offer stakeholders an efficient process with fair standards so that they have confidence in the program. I am developing legislation in consultation with stakeholders and agency officials to make changes that will bring about lasting improvements for everyone involved. The EB-5 regional center program is one small corner of our overall immigration system--and it is one that generates tangible, ongoing economic benefits for Americans in the form of jobs and capital investment in local communities. It is an American success story, and we can build on its success with a continuing charter, with careful cultivation, and with appropriate oversight. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join the senior Senator from California and others to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, so that same-sex marriages authorized under State law will be recognized by the Federal Government and protected under Federal law. Since the passage of DOMA, several States, including the State of Vermont, have provided the protections of marriage to same-sex couples. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, these families are not treated fairly. That is why today's action is needed. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I often find myself confronted by those who think the issue of civil rights is merely one for the history books. This is not true. There is still work to be done. The march toward equality must continue until all individuals and all families are both protected and respected. Today, Congress will begin to help bring fairness to all our Nation's families. The issue of marriage is one that has long been left for the states to determine, and they have. Today, five States, including my home State of Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, have granted same-sex couples the right to get married. With DOMA as law, however, we are creating a tier of second-class families in States that have authorized same-sex marriage. As a Vermonter who has been married for 48 years, I believe it is important that we encourage and sanction committed relationships. That is the best way to provide for stable, supportive families. Vermont has led the Nation in this regard. In 2000, Vermont took a crucial step when it became the first State in the Nation to allow civil unions for same-sex couples. In 2009, Vermont took another important step to help sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives by becoming the first state to adopt same-sex marriage through the legislative process. I am proud of the progressive example set by my constituents, and I do not want any of them harmed by the continuing effect of DOMA. The time has now come for the Federal Government to recognize that these families deserve all of the legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples recognized under state law. The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2004 that stated that same-sex couples are denied more than one thousand Federal benefits. Right now, couples in states that authorize same-sex marriage laws cannot file joint Federal tax returns and are not entitled to the same Social Security and medical leave benefits as opposite-sex married couples under Federal law. This goes against American values and it must end. This is a question of basic civil rights, and how the constitutional principles of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause protect all of us from discrimination. The President and the Attorney General recognized this when they announced that the Department of Justice will no longer defend two court cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the DOMA. I applaud President Obama and Attorney General Holder for making the right decision. However, the administration is still enforcing DOMA elsewhere, because it is the law of the land. It is now time for leaders in Congress to change that law. The Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 would allow same-sex couples who are married under state law to be eligible for Federal benefits. Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to celebrate or perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Those prerogatives would remain. What would change, however, and what must change, is the Federal Government's treatment of State-sanctioned marriage. I believe this legislation is overdue, and it is a step in the right direction toward fostering equal treatment under law. I urge my fellow Senators to come together to support this important bill.