Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will now finally have a vote on the nomination of Ellen L. Hollander to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Her nomination has been pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar since the Judicial Committee reported it unanimously on June 10, more than 6 months ago. Judge Hollander, a well-respected Maryland State judge for the last 16 years, was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and has the strong support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. After the confirmations today, 30 Federal circuit and district court nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee remain ready for final vote. These include 21 nominations reported unanimously and another 3 reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of ``no'' votes. These 24 nominations should have been confirmed within days of being reported. In addition, 17 nominations ready for action on the Senate calendar are to fill judicial emergency vacancies. With judicial vacancies at historic highs, we should act on these nominations. We should do as we did during President Bush's first 2 years in office, when the Senate with a Democratic majority had up-or-down votes on all 100 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. That included controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lameduck session in 2002. In contrast, during this first Congress of President Obama's administration, the Senate has considered just 49 of the 80 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee. I congratulate Judge Hollander and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider two judicial nominations that have been stalled for months on the Executive Calendar after being reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. The first nomination is Albert Diaz of North Carolina, who was nominated in November 2009 to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. His Republican home State senator, Senator Burr, asked nearly a year ago that the Judiciary Committee ``look for an expedited review and referral to the full Senate so that that deficiency on the fourth circuit can be filled.'' We did and the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination after unanimous rollcall vote--19 to 0--on January 28, nearly 11 months ago. There has been no explanation for the lengthy delays preventing final consideration of his nomination. Judge Albert Diaz is a respected and experienced North Carolina jurist who served in the Armed Forces. He has the support of both his home State Senators, Senator Hagan and Senator Burr. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him unanimously ``well qualified'', and the North Carolina Bar Association has urged us to confirm him. When he is confirmed today, Judge Diaz will be the first Latino to sit on the Fourth Circuit. I congratulate Judge Diaz and his family on his confirmation. In addition to Judge Diaz, there are six more superbly qualified consensus circuit court nominees ready for consideration by the Senate, four of them for judicial emergency vacancies. Five of these were reported unanimously, and another was reported with the support of 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. I predict all six would be confirmed with strong bipartisan support, and I hope all six can get up-or-down votes before the Senate adjourns. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have long argued in favor of greater diversity and localism in broadcasting. Today, Congress takes a positive step by making available more radio broadcast outlets for local content. I am pleased that Congress has finally passed and sent to the President the Local Community Radio Act, which will increase the number of frequencies available for low power FM, LPFM, radio stations. I am a cosponsor of the Senate version of this legislation, and have been an original cosponsor of similar legislation in each of the previous two Congresses. I commend Senator Cantwell for her hard work in reaching an agreement with full power broadcasters that will ensure they are protected. The rash of nationwide consolidation we have witnessed in the broadcast industry over the last decade has been alarming, if predictable. Low power FM stations offer a valuable counterweight to this trend. By using low power stations, community groups can access underutilized spectrum and provide content tailored to smaller communities. The Local Community Radio Act rolls back unnecessary restrictions that have limited the number of frequencies on which LPFM stations can operate. This legislation is important because LPFM stations provide opportunities for local organizations to serve local communities. Vermont has 11 LPFM stations serving local communities in Vermont from Hyde Park to Brattleboro to Warren. There is room for more in Vermont and across the country. Low Power FM provides the opportunity for truly local content to flourish, and today's legislation will make more such stations available.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether we should debate the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. I have been a cosponsor of this important legislation since it was first introduced in the Senate in 2001, and I commend Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar for their hard work in advancing the DREAM Act this year. At the very least, we should have a debate about this important legislation. Enacting the DREAM Act will serve important priorities for our country and for our military. Under current law, when undocumented students graduate from high school, they typically have no opportunity to gain lawful immigration status, a circumstance that often prevents them from pursuing higher education or making other meaningful contributions to our Nation. The bill recognizes the accomplishments of successful students who want to serve our Nation through military service or by obtaining degrees in higher education. The DREAM Act offers a path to lawful immigration status to individuals who are currently undocumented, but who were brought to the United States at a young age by their parents. The bill is specifically drafted to assist those students who did not act on their own volition to enter the United States unlawfully. In landmark Supreme Court cases like Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that we should not punish children for the actions of their parents. Yet to deny these students a path to lawful status and eventual citizenship does just that. In December 2009, the Department of Defense cited passage of the DREAM Act as an important strategic goal for 2010-2012. The Pentagon believes that the DREAM Act has potential to expand our all-volunteer military without decreasing the quality of recruits. It is supported by General Colin Powell and many others. Despite numerous good faith gestures from Democrats in the Senate to work with Republicans on immigration issues, we have been met with silence at best, and obstructionism at worst. Nonetheless, the version of the DREAM Act that we consider today has been modified to address concerns raised by those who have falsely labeled the DREAM Act as a form of amnesty. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R.6497 will reduce deficits by approximately $2.2 billion over the years from 2011-2020. While the cost saving in the new version of the DREAM Act is welcome news, I regret that the students and soldiers who benefit from this bill will now have to wait for 10 years to become eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence. They will have to apply for conditional status twice during that 10 year period and pay more than $2,500 in fees. I believe that American values call for more generous treatment of individuals who serve our Nation, especially those who are willing to fight on behalf of our Nation overseas. At various points in the past 10 years, several Republican Senators voted in favor of much more generous versions of this bill. I regret that so few Republicans will support this pared down version of the DREAM Act today. I wish that we could have achieved bipartisan support in the 111th Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Even without that bipartisan commitment, we should do all we can. The AgJOBS bill, the Uniting American Families Act, the Refugee Protection Act, and the improvement of our immigrant investor program are all reforms that will make our immigration system stronger and more effective. I will continue to work with Senate leadership and Senators from both sides of the aisle to accomplish our shared goals for the broader reform of our Nation's immigration system. The DREAM Act is a critical step to reforming our immigration system and enables a well-deserving group of young people to better serve our country. I am glad to pledge my full support, and I encourage Senators on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night, as snow fell in Washington, DC, the Senate freeze on confirming judges began to thaw a bit. I thank the leaders for clearing 4 of the 38 judicial nominations awaiting final action by the Senate. These nominations will fill a few of the historically high number of Federal judicial vacancies around the country, including in the Eastern District of California, one of the districts with the highest workloads in the country. All the nominations confirmed last night were reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection way back in May and early June. I hope this is an indication that the other 34 judicial nominees pending in the Senate will receive consideration and a vote by the Senate before the Senate adjourns. Senate consideration of the four nominations we confirmed last night was long overdue. In fact, these are the first judicial confirmations the Senate has considered since September 13, more than 3 months ago. For months, these nominations and many others have languished before the Senate, without explanation and for no reason. As a result of these needless delays, of the 80 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, only 45 have been considered by the Senate. Even with yesterday's confirmations, that remains a historically low number and percentage. Meanwhile, 34 judicial nominees with well- established qualifications and the support of their home State Senators from both parties are still waiting for Senate consideration. Some were sent to the Senate for final action as long ago as last January after being reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Last night, we unanimously confirmed Catherine Eagles to the Middle District of North Carolina, Kimberly Mueller to the Eastern District of California, John Gibney to the Eastern District of Virginia, and James Bredar to the District of Maryland. Judge Eagles and Judge Mueller were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on May 6; Mr. Gibney's nomination was reported unanimously on May 27; and Judge Bredar's nomination was reported unanimously on June 10. Judge Mueller's confirmation is particularly welcome news for the Eastern District of California, which maintains the highest weighted caseload among all Federal judicial districts across the country. There is no reason and still no explanation for these delays. Since last year, I have been urging all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, to join together to take action to end the crisis of skyrocketing judicial vacancies. That has not happened. I have asked that we return to the longstanding practices that the Senate used to follow when considering nominations from Presidents of both parties. This has not happened. As a result, 34 judicial nominations that have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee continue to be stalled on the Senate's Executive Calendar awaiting final consideration and their confirmation. I hope that our action yesterday in considering a handful of nominations signals a new effort to address the vacancies that have doubled over the last 2 years. Vacancies are now at the historically high level of 108. Fifty of these vacancies are deemed judicial emergency vacancies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Senate has received letters from courts around the country calling for help to address their crushing caseloads, including letters from the Chief Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Courts in California, Colorado, Illinois and the District of Columbia. They have pleaded with us to end the blockade and confirm judges to fill vacancies in their courts. The Senate should vote on all of the judicial nominations awaiting final action by the Senate. We should do as we did during President Bush's first 2 years in office, and consider every judicial nomination favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. During those 2 years, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported 100 judicial nominations and the Senate confirmed every one of them, including controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lame duck session in 2002. In contrast, during this first Congress of President Obama's administration, the Senate has considered just 45 of the 80 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee. I hope we can build on the belated progress made last night. Agreements to debate and consider nominations have been sought repeatedly. Of the 34 judicial nominations currently stalled on the Executive Calendar, 25 of them were reported unanimously by the 19 Republican and Democratic members of the committee. Another three were reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of no votes. Of these 28 bipartisan, consensus nominees, 15 of them were nominated to fill judicial emergency vacancies. They all should have been confirmed within days of being reported. It will be a travesty if they are not all confirmed before the 111th Congress adjourns. These consensus nominees yet to be considered include six unanimously reported circuit court nominees, and another circuit court nominee supported by 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The nomination of a respected and experienced jurist, Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, for a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit has been stalled for 11 months, since last January, despite the support of both his home state Senators, a Democrat and a Republican. Four of the other consensus circuit court nominations would also fill judicial emergency vacancies, and three of them came through the committee with the strong support of two home State Republican Senators. All seven circuit court nominees are superbly qualified and I predict if considered would be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. Last night we confirmed four district court nominations, but 26 are still being blocked from consideration. Some were reported as long ago as February. Senate inaction on these nominations is a dramatic departure from the traditional practice of considering them expeditiously and with deference to the home State Senators. These 26 district court nominations include 19 nominations reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Thirteen of these nominations are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. All 26 nominees have well- established qualifications and are at the top of the legal community in their home States. All have put their lives and practices on hold in an attempt to serve their country and their community. There is no cause for continuing to block the Senate from considering their nominations and no precedent for extending these delays further. For the last 17 years, Catherine Eagles has served North Carolina as a superior court judge. Before that, she spent nearly a decade as an attorney in private practice. Her nomination has had the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Burr, a Republican, and Senator Hagan, a Democrat--as does the nomination of Alberto Diaz to the Fourth Circuit from North Carolina that remains stalled without final action. The American Bar Association, ABA, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Eagles well-qualified-- its highest possible rating--to serve as a District Court Judge. With her confirmation, Judge Eagles will become the first woman to serve on the Middle District of North Carolina, and only the second in the State. The nomination of Kimberly Jo Mueller to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eastern District of California, one of the busiest courts in the country, was held on the Executive Calendar for more than 7 months. Judge Mueller has served the Eastern District as a Magistrate Judge since 2003. Prior to becoming an attorney, she was a 6-year term as a Sacramento city councilmember before earning her J.D. from Stanford Law School. Her nomination has the strong support of both of her home State Senators and she was unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its highest possible rating. Judge Mueller will be the only female judge in the Eastern District of California. John A. Gibney, Jr. was nominated more than eight months ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. That Mr. Gibney has the strong support of both Virginia Senators is no surprise since he has a long and distinguished career, practicing law in Richmond, VA, for more than 30 years. Mr. Gibney has represented a wide variety of clients, from business to local governments to private individuals. Currently, he is a partner and a civil litigator in the Richmond, VA, firm ThompsonMcMullan. Mr. Gibney earned his B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, from the College of William & Mary and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. After graduation, he clerked for Justice Harry L. Carrico of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Judge James Bredar has served for 12 years as a Federal Magistrate Judge on the District Court to which he is now nominated. As a lawyer, Judge Bredar saw the justice system from both sides, first as a Federal prosecutor in Colorado and then as a Federal public defender in Maryland. Judge Bredar will be the first Federal defender to serve as a Federal judge in Maryland. His nomination has the support of both of his home State Senators and received the highest possible rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. The 34 judicial nominations remaining on the calendar should be accorded the same up-or-down vote as the four considered last night. They should have the same up-or-down vote given to all 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations reported by the committee in his first 2 years. Even if Republican Senators will not follow our example and treat President Obama's nominees as we treated President Bush's, they should at least listen to their own statements from just a few years ago. They said that every judicial nomination reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee was entitled to an up-or-down vote. They spoke then about the constitutional duty of the Senate to consider every judicial nomination. The Constitution has not changed; it has not been amended. The change from the days in which they made those statements is that the American people elected a new President and he is making the nominations. The Senate should also debate and a vote on those few nominees that Republican Senators opposed in committee. These nominees include Benita Pearson of Ohio, William Martinez of Colorado, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, John McConnell of Rhode Island, and Goodwin Liu of California. As I have said before, I have reviewed their records and considered their character, background and qualifications. I have heard the criticisms of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee as they have voted against this handful of nominees. I disagree, and believe the Senate would vote on their confirmation. Each of these nominees have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, several of them two or three times, and each deserves an up-or-down vote. That they will not be conservative activist judges should not disqualify them from consideration by the Senate or serving on the bench. President Obama has reached out and worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle in selecting well-qualified judicial nominees. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have made sure that we have not proceeded on any judicial nominees without the support of both home State Senators. There has been consultation and a thorough and fair process for evaluating nominations. There has been more than enough time for Senators to decide how they want to vote. Now it is time to return to the Senate's longstanding traditions and reject the obstruction that has blocked us month after month from considering judicial nominations. Now is the time to act to address the needs of the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them for justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on November 19, 2010, the Senate passed the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. This legislation makes many important technical changes to our bankruptcy laws. Yesterday, on December 16, the House of Representatives passed this legislation again, with an amendment from the Senate. Senator Whitehouse, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, along with Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith of the House Judiciary Committee should be commended for their attention to these issues. This bipartisan legislation makes numerous technical corrections to the Bankruptcy Code. These revisions are needed as the result in part of the major reforms that took place in 2005. Given the breadth of the 2005 reforms, and the highly technical nature of the code, it was not unexpected that some additional congressional action was needed to make some needed adjustments. Although purely technical, these changes will assist practitioners and judges adjudicate cases under the code more efficiently, and with a savings of judicial resources. At a time in the United States when Americans are struggling under severe economic conditions and with millions of Americans having lost their homes or in danger of foreclosure, it is especially important for the Bankruptcy Code to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. I thank all Senators for their support of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for nearly 2 years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been examining serious issues in forensic science that go to the heart of our criminal justice system. The committee has studied the problem exhaustively, and we reached out to a wide array of experts and stakeholders. While the days of the 111th Congress are drawing to a close, it is my intention to introduce legislation early next year that represents the culmination of this process. That legislation will strengthen our confidence in the criminal justice system and the evidence it relies upon by ensuring that forensic evidence and testimony is accurate, credible, and scientifically grounded. In February of 2009, the National Academy of Science, NAS, published a report asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that must be urgently addressed. The report suggested that basic research establishing the scientific validity of many forensic science disciplines has never been done in a comprehensive way. It also suggested that the forensic sciences lack uniform and unassailable standards governing the accreditation of laboratories, the certification of forensic practitioners, and the testing and analysis of evidence. Indeed, I was disturbed to learn about still more cases in which innocent people may have been convicted, perhaps even executed, in part due to faulty forensic evidence. Since then, the Judiciary Committee has held a pair of hearing on the issue. Committee members, as well as staff, have spent countless hours talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, judges, forensic practitioners, scientists, academic experts, and many, many others to learn as much as we can about what is happening now and what needs to be done. Through the course of this inquiry, we discussed some of the current problems in forensic science that we need to address. But it also became abundantly clear that the men and women who test and analyze forensic evidence do great work that is vital to our criminal justice system. Accordingly, as a former prosecutor, I am committed to strengthening the field of forensics, and the justice system's confidence in it, so that their hard work can be consistently relied upon, as it should be. While there were varying responses to the findings of the NAS report, one thing was clear: there needed to be a searching review of the state of forensic science work in this country. And it also became clear through this process that there is widespread consensus about the need for change and the kind of change that is needed. Almost everyone I heard from recognized the need for strong and unassailable research to test and establish the validity of the forensic disciplines, as well as the need for consistent and rigorous accreditation and certification standards in the field. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers want evidence that can be relied upon as definitively as possible to determine guilt and prove it in a court of law. Defense attorneys want strong evidence that can as definitively as possible exclude innocent people. Forensic practitioners want their work to have as much certainty as possible and to be given deserved deference. All scientists and all attorneys who care about these issues want the science that is admitted as evidence in the courtroom to match the science that is proven through rigorous testing and research in the laboratory. Everyone who cares about forensics also recognizes that there is a dire need for well managed and appropriately directed funding for research, development, training, and technical assistance. It is a good investment, as it will lead to fewer trials and appeals and reduce crime by ensuring that those who commit serious offenses are promptly captured and convicted. The legislation I intend to introduce next year will address these widely recognized needs. Among other things, it will require that all forensic science laboratories that receive federal funding or federal business be accredited according to rigorous and uniform standards. It will require that all relevant personnel who perform forensic work for any laboratory or agency that gets federal money become certified in their fields, which will mean meeting standards in proficiency, education, and training. I expect that the proposal will set up a rigorous process to determine the most serious needs for peer-reviewed research in the forensic science disciplines and will set up grant programs to fund that research. The bill will also provide for this research to lead to appropriate standards and best practices in each discipline. It will also fund research into new technologies and techniques that will allow forensic testing to be done more quickly, more efficiently, and more accurately. I believe these are proposals that will be widely supported by those on all sides of this issue. The bill that I will introduce will seek to balance carefully a number of competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensic science right. It will capitalize on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. And ultimately, improved forensic science will save money, reduce the number of costly appeals, shorten investigations and trials, and help to eliminate wrongful imprisonments. I understand that sweeping forensic reform and criminal justice reform legislation not only should, but must, be bipartisan. There is no reason for a partisan divide on this issue; fixing this problem does not advance prosecutors or defendants, liberals or conservatives, but justice. I have worked closely with interested Republican Senators on this vital issue. I hope that many Republican Senators will join me in introducing important forensics reform legislation at the beginning of the next Congress, and I will continue to work diligently with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this becomes the consensus bipartisan legislation that it ought to be. I want to thank the forensic science practitioners, experts, advocates, law enforcement personnel, judges, and so many others whose input forms the basis for the legislation I will propose. Their passion for this issue and for getting it right gives me confidence that we will work together successfully to make much needed progress. I hope all Senators will join me next year in advancing important legislation to restore confidence to the forensic sciences and the criminal justice system.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also called the New START Treaty. New START, if ratified, will have several major and positive impacts on our national security and on global nonproliferation. I must express my deep disappointment that the Senate has not yet ratified this treaty, and I join my friends Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar in appealing to all Senators for their cooperation and support in ratifying this treaty. The New START treaty is the right move for our country and for our world. New START builds on a long history of strategic nuclear arms treaties between the United States and Russia and Russia's predecessor, the Soviet Union. Beginning with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ratified in 1972, we have entered into three strategic arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and Russia. This number does not include START II, which was ratified by the Senate in 1996 but never entered into force due to subsequent treaty mandates from the Russian Duma. The most recent arms control treaty, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT, was ratified unanimously in March 2003. Unfortunately, both the SALT and original START treaties have expired, with START concluding last December. The expiration of these treaties means that the United States presently has no fully implemented arms control treaty governing the nuclear weapons stockpiles of the United States and Russia. This circumstance is dangerous to our national security and needs to be rectified as soon as possible. I am not alone in holding that position. A bevy of experts have strongly urged support for the New START treaty, from all points on the political spectrum. Every senior leader and expert in the current administration supports the quick ratification of New START, from Secretaries Gates and Clinton to a whole range of uniformed leaders such as Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General O'Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency; and General Klotz, the Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command. General Klotz is joined by many of his predecessors who commanded the Strategic Command and Strategic Air Command, including General Welch, General Chain, General Butler, Admiral Ellis, General Davis, and more. Former Secretaries of Defense have come out in support of New START, including James Schlesinger, William Perry, Frank Carlucci, and Harold Brown. Former Secretaries of State of both parties are also advocating Senate ratification: Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger. The list of distinguished, trusted and experienced advocates goes on and on, reading like a ``Who's Who'' of the U.S. diplomatic and military communities. One of the biggest reasons why so many experts are arguing for ratification of this treaty is because it will do a great deal to control Russian nuclear arms and resume verifiable inspections. New START would reduce Russia's deployment of strategic nuclear warheads by about 25 percent. U.S. inspectors have not held an inspection of Russia's nuclear arsenal for a year; New START would resume inspections. Specifically, U.S. inspectors will have 18 annual inspections of Russian delivery vehicles and warheads. No previous treaty has allowed direct U.S. monitoring of Russian warheads for verification purposes. In fact, the close perspective that U.S. inspections would allow under this treaty will eliminate the need to share information about missile flight testing since that information, also called telemetry, was used to determine the number of warheads that a missile carried. New START will let us determine that by counting the warheads themselves, not by evaluating missile flight data. Secretary Gates has confirmed that New START is sufficiently verifiable that the United States could determine if Russia made any attempts to cheat on our break out of the treaty. Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of New START is its contribution to global nonproliferation, which all of us can agree would be strongly beneficial to our national security interests. The United States will never convince other states to forgo a nuclear program if we do not show our own commitment to ending the nuclear scourge. More importantly, we will not be able to reach agreement with our partners about punitive nonproliferation measures without ratifying New START. It is difficult to discuss this subject without raising the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Today the international community has put in place deservedly harsh sanctions against Iran's governing regime. These sanctions are so tough that Kenneth Pollack quotes former Iranian President Ayatollah Rafsanjani as calling them ``no joke'' and warning ``that [Iran's] situation is dire.'' These sanctions required patient international cooperation that cannot survive American preventive attacks. And without sanctions we should give up any hope of ending Iran's nuclear program. Instead, we must continue to isolate Iran by garnering international support for further escalating sanctions. The United States, not Iran, is the indispensable nation, and to gather support for punitive non- proliferation we must lead by example. New START demonstrates our commitment to limiting the threat of nuclear weapons--even those in our own arsenal. And it bolsters our further requests to other countries to squeeze Iran in ways that the ayatollahs cannot tolerate. Even while New START will renew our leadership in nuclear nonproliferation, the treaty reserves our right to pursue missile defense options and maintain an effective nuclear deterrent. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is extremely unlikely to arrive on the tip of a missile. Even so, the most ardent supporters of spending billions more on strategic missile defense must acknowledge that New START's provisions were so well negotiated as to bar limitations on American defensive technologies. Similarly, the treaty will not prevent us from deterring other nuclear powers. New START allows the United States to maintain a highly credible deterrent. Expansive and unchecked Russian and American nuclear arsenals are dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary. Eliminating the threat of stolen or illegally purchased nuclear weapons must be among the very gravest threats that the United States faces today. New START will help us diminish and contain that threat. At a time when leaders of both parties are seeking ways to cut the budget deficit, our nuclear program seems like an unnecessary and burdensome vestige of the Cold War. It is difficult if not impossible to credibly argue today that the massive nuclear arsenal we built to deter the Soviet Union serves our needs in today's changed world, where terrorism and the support of terrorism loom so large as threats to our security. The time has come to do the right thing for the right reasons. Both parties should cooperate, as we have in the past, on issues that will make our country safer. No one should doubt that the New START treaty will do exactly that. Especially on an issue so vitally important to our security, and to the security of our children and grandchildren, the American people want and deserve a fair and straightforward debate. Partisan point-scoring should be checked at the door. Let us vote to ratify New START.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is with deep sadness that I speak in memory of a dear friend, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who died Monday at the far-too-early age of 69. I first met Dick years and years ago, long before he held his most recent post of Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. We had so many conversations, meetings, and trips over the years, as his career progressed, particularly during the war in the former Yugoslavia. Dick's skillful diplomacy that ended the siege of Sarajevo and finally ended that war is legendary. Nobody else could have done what he did. He was motivated above all by compassion, intent on stopping the suffering of innocent people who were being terrorized for no other reason than their ethnicity. He combined the force of his convictions with the force of his personality, along with his boundless energy, to do what others had been unable to do. Ambassador Holbrooke did not accept no for an answer. I remember meeting Dick in 1999. We had planned a meeting. I was in Macedonia, and he was in Kosovo. It was a very foggy, rainy day. We could not travel by helicopter, as we planned, so we met on a slippery, narrow road, with a several-hundred-foot cliff on one side. We sat together on the hood of a car and he described what he had observed. He told me what he believed needed to be done. It was fascinating because Dick put everything into perspective as only he could. It is fair to say we took advantage of that unlikely meeting to reminisce and laugh about other times and places, some of which were just as unlikely. This was one of those rare conversations that makes an unforgettable impression on you--most of all because it was Dick Holbrooke. He was so passionate, so animated, yet with a determination and a sense of humor that made the challenge of solving the thorniest of problems hard to resist. It was in his latest position that I heard most often from Dick, when he would call to keep me apprised of his efforts to try to get the most out of our aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was not an easy task. He called me on weekends at my home in Vermont, and we would talk about it. Dick led the reshaping of U.S. policy in South Asia during a difficult transition period. He charged headfirst into the maelstrom of Afghanistan and Pakistan 7 years after the conflict began, raising key and sometimes unpopular questions about our efforts there. Not infrequently, the press would report about his combative style and another heated exchange with some foreign leader. But in Dick's final hours, his wife Kati Marton received calls of sympathy from Afghan President Karzai and Pakistani President Zardari, which says a lot about Dick. My thoughts and prayers are with Kati and Dick's sons and stepchildren and with Dick's loyal staff at the Department of State during this sad time. I and others here have lost a dear friend. The American people have lost one of the greatest diplomats of our time, an extraordinary man who loved this country and devoted his life to it as much as any person could. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for just the eighth time in this country's history, the Senate has voted to impeach and remove a Federal judge from the bench. Impeachment is a serious, constitutional act intended not as a form of punishment, but rather as means of protecting the integrity of our system of government. This is particularly true when we consider the impeachment of members of the judiciary. Public confidence in our courts is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. When a judge engages in conduct that grossly violates the public trust, he or she not only becomes incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the office, but also brings disrepute to the entire judicial system. Prior to the Senate's vote on December 8, I voted three times to convict a Federal judge. In each instance, I carefully considered the facts in the case, as well as my constitutional obligations and the precedent being set for future generations. I have no doubt that just as we looked back to past impeachments to guide our actions in this proceeding, we now leave new precedent that others will look to for guidance and wisdom. For this reason, I wanted to elaborate on the constitutional issues presented during this impeachment trial and explain my decision to vote to convict Judge Porteous on all four Articles of Impeachment. First, I should note that the impeachment trial against Mr. Porteous was bipartisan, and, I believe, unquestionably fair. The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee held 5 days of evidentiary hearings, with testimony received from 26 fact and expert witnesses. The record before the Senate is well developed, and most of the facts underlying the allegations against Mr. Porteous are uncontested. These facts demonstrate that Mr. Porteous engaged in conduct that compromised the administration of justice, brought disrepute to his office, and required his removal from the bench. The first article of impeachment alleges that as a Federal judge, Mr. Porteous failed to recuse himself in the bench trial of Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, despite having previously engaged in a corrupt scheme with one of the attorneys before the court. The House managers established that as a State judge, Mr. Porteous assigned curatorship cases to two attorneys, one of whom was before him in the Liljeberg case, and had a portion of the fees, totaling approximately $20,000, funneled back to him. Not only did Mr. Porteous fail to disclose these facts or recuse himself from the case, he proceeded to solicit and accept $2,000 cash from those attorneys while the Liljeberg case was still under his advisement. Out of concern for the public's confidence in our court system, I have frequently expressed disappointment about the lack of recusals by judges with conflicts of interest. There should be no doubt that recusals go to the heart of a judge's impartiality. In gross violation of his judicial ethics, Mr. Porteous engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, solicited and accepted money from attorneys with pending matters before his court, and deprived the public and litigants of his honest services by failing to recuse himself. The defense argued that article I should be dismissed because of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Skilling. I am familiar with the Court's ruling, and have authored legislation in response to it. The Supreme Court's holding was about a specific criminal statute, not judicial conduct or impeachment standards. No reasonable judge would believe that soliciting and accepting cash payments from an attorney with a pending case would be allowable or would not be an obvious ground for recusal. The notion that was raised by the defense that corrupt judges could not be impeached ignores the purpose of impeachment as it relates to public confidence in our justice system. The Constitution did not list a specific set of conduct that would result in impeachment. Instead, Senators should determine for themselves what conduct renders one unfit to hold public office. We must consider the type of duties that the impeached official is called upon to perform and whether the conduct engaged in impairs the official's ability to perform those duties. This analysis differs depending on the office and responsibilities of the official before us. Article II alleges that as a State court judge, Mr. Porteous took numerous things of value and accepted personal services from a bail bondsman, while setting favorable bonds for his company. As a Federal judge, Mr. Porteous continued to receive things of value in exchange for using ``the power and prestige of his office'' to help these bondsmen form corrupt relationships with State court judges. The evidence showed a pattern before and after his Federal confirmation of capitalizing on his position of power to receive improper gifts. Moreover, as Professor Michael Gerhardt, who served as Special Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last two Supreme Court confirmations, testified before the House Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, the Constitution does not state that improper conduct must be committed during the tenure of the Federal office; rather, ``[t]he critical questions are whether Judge Porteous committed such misconduct and whether such misconduct demonstrates the lack of integrity and judgment that are required in order for him to continue to function [as a Federal judge].'' I agree with Professor Gerhardt on this fundamental question. Certainly if the Senate learned after confirmation that a judge killed someone before he or she was confirmed, the Senate should not be prevented from later removing that judge. Similarly, the Senate should not be foreclosed from removing a judge for serious misconduct not revealed during the confirmation process that goes to the role of the judge. A lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary does not entitle those unfit to serve to a lifetime of Federal salary and benefits. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I reject any notion of impeachment immunity if misconduct was hidden, or otherwise went undiscovered during the confirmation process, and it is relevant to a judge's ability to serve as an impartial arbiter. With regard to the third article of impeachment, it is clear that Mr. Porteous knowingly and intentionally made material false statements and representations--including signing and filing under the name ``G.T. Orteous''--under penalty of perjury on his personal bankruptcy court filing. It is hard to imagine stronger evidence that this judge believed the law did not apply to him. A judge who lies under oath in court filings is unable to continue in an office that requires him to administer oaths and sit in judgment. Mr. Porteous's actions in his bankruptcy proceedings demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the courts as an institution, making him unfit to serve as a respected member of the judiciary. The last article of impeachment against Mr. Porteous relates to his actions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I take the word of judicial nominees that come before our committee very seriously. The process for aiding the Senate in considering these lifetime appointments relies on being able to trust and evaluate the information provided to us by nominees, so it requires their utmost candor. Mr. Porteous knowingly made material false statements about his past to the Senate by responding ``no'' to questions on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, and to the FBI in connection with his background review, in order to obtain office. His defense to article IV is that his conduct was ``business as usual'' in New Orleans and, therefore, he believed his responses to be true. Whether he made false statements is not purely a subjective inquiry; and most certainly not where his ``belief'' in the truth of his statements is in direct conflict with the factual knowledge on which it is based. I am convinced that Mr. Porteous's responses on the Senate questionnaire were material because had his solicitation and acceptance of cash and gifts from parties with matters before him been known to the Senate, he would not have been confirmed. During the impeachment trial proceedings, I asked both the House managers and Mr. Porteous's defense attorneys the following question: ``The Senate Judiciary Committee requires a sworn statement as part of a detailed questionnaire by a nominee. Until this questionnaire is filed, neither the Judiciary Committee nor the Senate votes to advise and consent to the nomination. Would not perjury on that questionnaire during the confirmation process be an impeachable offense?'' Both sides unequivocally answered that perjury on the Senate questionnaire and during the confirmation process would be an impeachable offense. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am particularly offended by Mr. Porteous's intentional dishonesty and disrespect for the office to which he was confirmed, and for the entire confirmation process. When a judicial nominee testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, they must be completely forthright and honor the promises or statements they make to us. Once confirmed, Federal judges have lifetime appointments. Impeachment is a drastic measure, but one we must take when a nominee conceals serious wrongdoing. The House managers presented uncontested facts that Mr. Porteous engaged in conduct that violated the public trust and is now unfit to be a district court judge, or hold any other public office. Both sides were well represented in this proceeding, and I thank them for their advocacy and professionalism.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning, both the New York Times and the Washington Post published strong editorials condemning the delays in Senate consideration of the President's nominees. The Washington Post wrote about the extraordinary and damaging treatment of Jim Cole, who is nominated to serve as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, a position with extensive responsibilities for national security and law enforcement. The New York Times wrote about the across-the-board objections to Senate consideration of judicial nominees, including dozens who have been reported without opposition by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Two weeks ago, I came to the floor and asked unanimous consent that the Senate consider the long-pending nomination of Jim Cole to be the Deputy Attorney General, and that the Senate schedule for debate and a vote without further delay. Senator Sessions objected to my request and we continue to be prevented from acting on this critical national security nomination. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement today's editorial from the Washington Post entitled, ``An Unacceptable Delay.'' The editorial notes: James M. Cole appeared well on his way in July to filling the important No. 2 slot at the Justice Department after earning a favorable vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the full Senate has yet to vote on Mr. Cole's nomination to what is essentially the post of chief operating officer of the mammoth department. The five months between committee and floor vote appear to be the longest delay endured by any deputy attorney general nominee. The slow crawl comes courtesy of some Senate Republicans who question Mr. Cole's approach to terrorism cases and his role as an independent monitor for struggling financial giant American International Group (AIG). These concerns should not derail Mr. Cole's confirmation--and they certainly should not be used to block a vote. Mr. Cole's nomination has been pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar since it was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in July. Those continuing to block this nomination from debate and a vote are wrong. As the editorial observes: ``There is no suggestion that Mr. Cole suffers from the kind of ethical or legal problems that would disqualify a nominee.'' If Senators disagree, they are free to vote against the nomination. But it is long past the time to end the stalling. I noted 2 weeks ago that the letter from eight former Deputy Attorneys General of the United States who served in the administrations of President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, as well as the current administration, correctly observed that ``the Deputy is also a key member of the president's national security team, a function that has grown in importance and complexity in the years since the terror attacks of September 11.'' They are right. This is a dangerous game that partisans are playing in stalling this important nomination in what is really an unprecedented way. Mr. Cole's nomination has been pending five times longer than the longest-pending Deputy Attorney General nomination in the last 20 years. All four of the Deputy Attorneys General who served under President Bush were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote an average of 21 days after they were reported by the Judiciary Committee. In fact, we confirmed President Bush's first nomination to be Deputy Attorney General the day it was reported by the committee. We treated those nominations of President Bush with the ``enormous deference in executive branch appointments'' that the Post editorial today states that every President deserves. Jim Cole served as a career prosecutor at the Justice Department for a dozen years, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and toughness. As he demonstrated during his confirmation hearing months ago, he understands the issues of crime and national security that are at the center of the Deputy Attorney General's job. Nothing suggests that he will be anything other than a steadfast defender of America's safety and security. His critics are wrong about Jim Cole's approach to terrorism. He has testified strongly that the President should use every power and weapon and tool he possesses in this fight. His critics are also wrong to try to blame him for the actions of AIG. His role was limited to a monitor of other corporate functions and there is no showing he did not perform his assignment well. In fact, former Republican Senator Jack Danforth introduced him to the committee and gave him a strong endorsement. Let us hold those responsible at AIG accountable. Those who disagree are free to vote against the nomination of this good man if they choose, but they should end the holds and the stalling and let the Senate decide whether to consent to this nomination. As today's editorial concludes, ``have the decency to hold a floor vote and give him a thumbs down.'' I am confident that when allowed a vote, he will be confirmed. He should be confirmed with bipartisan support and that vote should have been taken months ago. The months of delay of this nomination have been unnecessary, debilitating and wrong. I urge those Senators who are objecting to debate and a vote to turn away from their destructive approach so that we can consider and confirm Jim Cole immediately and he can finally begin his important work to help protect the American people. For over a year now, I have been urging all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, to join together to take action to end the crisis of skyrocketing judicial vacancies now threatening the ability of Federal courts throughout the country to administer justice for the American people. That has not happened. I have asked that we return to longstanding practices that the Senate used to follow when considering nominations from Presidents of both parties. This has not happened. As a result, 38 judicial nominations that have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee continue to be stalled without final Senate action on the Senate's Executive Calendar. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement today's editorial from The New York Times entitled ``Advise and Obstruct.'' It rightly calls for an end to the across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. The editorial notes that the Senate has been blocked from considering a single judicial nomination since September 13. In fact, the Senate has only considered five Federal circuit and district court nominations since the Fourth of July recess. Of the 80 judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the Senate for final action in order to fill Federal circuit and district court vacancies, only 41 have been considered. That is a historically low number and percentage. Meanwhile, dozens of judicial nominees with well-established qualifications and the support of their home state Senators from both parties have been ready and kept waiting for Senate consideration all year. The editorial also points to the high costs of obstruction ``at a time when an uncommonly high number of judicial vacancies is threatening the sound functioning of the nation's courts.'' The editorial is right. The vacancies on the Federal courts around the country have doubled over the last 2 years and now are at the historically high level of 111. Fifty-two of these vacancies are deemed judicial emergency vacancies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Senate has received letters from courts around the country calling for help to address their crushing caseloads, including letters from the Chief Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Courts in California, Colorado, Illinois and the District of Columbia. They have pleaded with us to end the blockade and confirm judges to fill vacancies in their courts. The Times editorial accurately portrays a grim picture of where we are in considering these nominations and also points the way forward: At this point, the Senate has approved 41--barely half--of President Obama's federal and district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee. Compare that with the first two years of the George W. Bush administration when the Senate approved all 100 of the judicial nominations approved by the committee. The final days of the lame-duck session are a chance to significantly improve on this dismal record and to lift the judicial confirmation process out of the partisan muck. The editorial calls for a vote on all 38 judicial nominations awaiting final action by the Senate. I agree and have been calling for votes on all of these nominations. We should do as we did during President Bush's first 2 years in office and consider every judicial nomination favorably reported by the Senate. During those two years the Judiciary Committee favorably reported 100 judicial nominations and the Senate confirmed every one of them, including controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lameduck session in 2002. In contrast, we have during President Obama's first 2 years favorably reported 80 circuit and district court nominations, but considered only 41, barely half. I have been trying to end this obstruction, yet it continues. Agreements to debate and consider nominations have been sought repeatedly, but the Republican leadership has objected time and time again. Of the 38 judicial nominations currently stalled on the Executive Calendar, 29 of them were reported unanimously, without a single negative vote from the 19 Republican and Democratic members of the committee. Another three were reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of no votes. Of these 32 bipartisan, consensus nominees, 17 of them were nominated to fill judicial emergency vacancies. They should all have been confirmed within days of being reported, not obstructed with weeks and months of delay. It will be a travesty if they are not all confirmed before the 111th Congress adjourns. These consensus nominees include six unanimously reported circuit court nominees, and another circuit court nominee supported by 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The nomination of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, a respected and experienced jurist who served in the Armed Forces, for a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit has been stalled for 11 months despite the support of his home state Senators from both parties. Judge Ray Lohier of New York would fill one of the four current vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He is another former prosecutor with support from both sides of the aisle. His confirmation has been stalled for no good reason for more than seven months. Scott Matheson is a nominee from Utah supported by Senator Hatch; he was reported without opposition over 6 months ago. Mary Murguia, a nominee from Arizona supported by Senator Kyl, was reported without opposition over 4 months ago. Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio is nominated to the Federal Circuit and was reported without opposition nearly 3 months ago. Justice James Graves of Mississippi, whose nomination has the strong support of his home State Republican Senators, was reported unanimously to serve on the Fifth Circuit. Also pending is a seventh consensus circuit court nomination, Susan Carney of Connecticut, who was reported with strong bipartisan support to fill another judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit. The nominees currently being blocked from consideration also include 30 district court nominations, some reported as long ago as February. The Republican blockade of these nominations is a dramatic departure from the traditional practice of considering them expeditiously and with deference to the home State Senators. These 30 district court nominees include 23 nominees reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Fifteen of these nominations are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. All of these nominees have well established qualifications and are at the top of the legal community in their home states. All have put their lives and practices on hold in an attempt to serve their country and their community. There is no cause for continuing to block the Senate from considering their nominations and no precedent for extending these delays further. In addition, I have urged for many months that the Senate debate and a vote on those few nominees that Republican Senators decided to oppose in committee. These nominees include Benita Pearson of Ohio, William Martinez of Colorado, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, John McConnell of Rhode Island, and Goodwin Liu of California. As I have said before, I have reviewed their records and considered their character, background and qualifications. I have heard the criticisms of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee as they have voted against this handful of nominees. I disagree, and believe the Senate would vote, as I have, to confirm them. Each of these nominees have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, several of them two or three times, and each deserves an up-or-down vote. That they will not be conservative activist judges should not disqualify them from consideration by the Senate or serving on the bench. All 38 of these judicial nominations should have an up-or-down vote, just as all 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations reported by the committee in his first 2 years had a vote in the Senate. Even if Republican Senators will not follow our example and treat President Obama's nominees as we treated President Bush's, even if they will not abide by the Golden Rule, they should at least listen to their own statements from just a few years ago. They said that every judicial nomination reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee was entitled to an up-or-down vote. They spoke then about the constitutional duty of the Senate to consider every judicial nomination. The Constitution has not changed; it has not been amended. The change from the days in which they made those statements is that the American people elected a new President and he is making the nominations. In fact, President Obama has reached out and worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle. We have not sought to proceed on one of his judicial nominees without the support of both home State Senators. Time is running out in this Congress to turn away from the disastrous strategy of blocking nominations across the board. It is time to return to the Senate's longstanding traditions and reject this obstruction. The Federal courts and the American people who depend on the courts for justice are suffering. Today, December 15, is the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Let us renew our commitment to the Constitution, to our Bill or Rights, and to our liberty by turning away from the destructive partisanship that has delayed Senate consideration of these nominations. Let us act in the spirit of the Founders, in the spirit of the season, and move forward together to consider and vote on these important nominations of a Deputy Attorney General and U.S. judges. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the articles to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the tax deal now before the Senate. While I support tax relief for working and middle-income Americans, I am not willing to add $858 billion to the national debt in order to give enormous tax breaks to multimillionaires. One of the biggest mistakes in the last administration was to wage two wars without paying for them while cutting taxes for the wealthiest. We should not repeat that mistake by rubberstamping this agreement between President Obama and congressional Republicans for a wholesale extension and expansion of the Bush-era tax cuts for 2 more years. I voted against the Bush-era tax cuts that were tilted heavily toward the very wealthiest Americans. I also voted against going to war in Iraq. Those may not have been the most popular votes at the time, but the relative few in the Senate who cast them were voting for a path that would have averted much of the economic turmoil that has roiled the economy, the budget and the lives of ordinary American families since then. If we are truly committed to helping our economy recover from the Great Recession and to putting our country back on the glide path to fiscal responsibility, then we should not extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. These enormous tax cuts have led to record federal deficits, contributed to the government's current financial woes, and have not helped many Americans who face the greatest financial burdens. Assurances at the time to the contrary, the Bush tax cuts failed to ``trickle down'' to help those Americans most in need, while the wealthiest 2-percent of Americans benefited substantially. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, most of the wealthy beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts have not plowed those dollars directly back into the economy to hire new workers or create new jobs. Rather than using their windfall to invest in our economy, corporations are building record cash reserves, and executive pay is through the roof once again. Why would anyone think that extending the tax cuts to the wealthiest will produce a different result now? Sensible choices are necessary now to protect the public's interests and our national interests. Many of them will be far more difficult than this choice is. The responsible choice is to extend tax relief for the middle-income Americans who need it most, and not to renew tax cuts for the upper incomes of the wealthiest who have benefited the most for so long. If we maintain these unbalanced tax policies, our soaring federal debt will have devastating repercussions and shortchange many of the Nation's priorities. I do think that Congress should provide directed tax relief that truly will help working families and that will improve our economy. For instance, I support extending such provisions in this package as the increase in the child tax credit, the elimination of the marriage penalty, and the 10-percent tax bracket. I also think we should retain many of the hiring incentives championed by President Obama that are providing needed assistance to Vermont small businesses looking to create job opportunities. These tax incentives have allowed Vermont companies to hire new workers and purchase new equipment for their business, thus creating demand for other new jobs to produce that equipment. But now is not the time to extend tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to companies that are sending American jobs overseas. I am greatly concerned that if we maintain these policies, our soaring Federal debt will have devastating repercussions. We will become increasingly vulnerable to the foreign nationals who are collecting our debt. The ability to provide promised Social Security and Medicare benefits will be eroded. And our children and grandchildren will be left with an enormous debt that they cannot possibly afford. I will support President Obama when he is right and oppose the President when he is wrong. I feel the President is wrong to make this deal. I am first and foremost a Vermonter, and the citizens of Vermont elected me to uphold my Vermont values. In this case, I believe the deal on tax cuts is wrong for most Vermonters and wrong for our country. That is why I am voting against this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been urging Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to come together and take action to begin to end the vacancy crisis that is threatening the administration of justice by our Federal courts. I asked only that Senators follow the Golden Rule. Regrettably that has not happened. Now 38 judicial nominees whose qualifications are well established are being delayed. They should be confirmed before we adjourn. Adherence to the Golden Rule, a simple step, would help us return to our Senate traditions, and allow the Senate to better fulfill its responsibilities to the American people and the Federal judiciary. I was encouraged last week when Senator Sessions, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, provided assurance that the many judicial nominees who have been stalled for months and months without Senate action will be confirmed before we adjourn. He is in a position to know. As the Republican leader on the committee, he works directly with the Republican leadership that continues to hold up virtually all judicial nominees, just as it has for months and months. At our Judiciary Committee business meeting on December 1, Senator Sessions said: ``The truth is except for a few nominees, the overwhelming majority have moved with bipartisan unanimous support and will be confirmed on the floor.'' He went on to predict that a number ``will clear before the session is over.'' I hope this assurance is true. I look forward to working with Senator Sessions to ensure that the Senate acts before adjourning. He is right: The overwhelming majority of the judicial nominees awaiting final action have strong bipartisan support. This makes the Republican obstruction of their confirmation all the more mystifying. Twenty-nine of the judicial nominees whose confirmations are being stonewalled were not opposed by any Senator, Republican or Democrat, during Judiciary Committee consideration. Two others had only one or two votes in opposition. Committee Republicans voted in lockstep to oppose only 4 of the 38 pending nominations. I believe that if debated by the Senate, those nominations, too, would be confirmed. Had we adhered to the Golden Rule, the judicial nominees who have been delayed for weeks and months would already be confirmed. That had been our practice and tradition. Democratic Senators did not stall the nominees of President Bush in this way. Senate Republicans should end their across the board blockade of noncontroversial judicial nominees. With 111 vacancies--a historically high number--plaguing our Federal courts today, the American people cannot afford this gamesmanship. Despite these skyrocketing vacancies, the Senate has not been permitted by Republicans to consider a single judicial nomination since September 13, when we confirmed Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit. Only after 10 months of delay was the Senate permitted to act. The Stranch nomination was the only nomination we were permitted to consider that entire work period. In fact, the Republican blockade of judicial nominations has been so complete that the Senate has been permitted to confirm only five Federal circuit and district court nominations since the fourth of July recess. While one in eight Federal judgeships remains vacant, Senate Republicans consented to confirm only a single judicial nomination in July. They consented to consider only four judicial nominations before the August recess, despite 21 nominations then on the calendar. We have considered only the Stranch nomination since returning from that recess. I do not recall a time when one party so thoroughly prevented the Senate from acting on consensus nominees with bipartisan support. I have been trying to end this obstruction, yet it continues. Democratic Senators have sought agreement on the floor to debate and consider nominations, but the Republican leadership has objected time and time again. The Democratic cloakroom has sought consent from the Republican cloakroom to move nominations, but there has been no consent. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 80 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. Due to Republican obstruction we have been able to consider only 41 of these. That is barely half. This is in sharp contrast to the first 2 years of President Bush's first term when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate confirmed all 100 of the judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate. In 2002, we proceeded in the lameduck session after the election to confirm 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees.This year by contrast none have been considered since the November elections. I have also urged for many months that the Senate debate and vote on those few nominees that some Republican Senators decided to oppose in committee. These nominees include Benita Pearson of Ohio, William Martinez of Colorado, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, John McConnell of Rhode Island, and Goodwin Liu of California. I have reviewed their records and considered their character, background and qualifications. I have heard the criticisms of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee as they have voted against this handful of nominees. I disagree, and believe the Senate would vote, as I have, to confirm them. Each of these nominees has been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, several of them two or three times, and each deserves an up or down vote. That they will not be conservative activist judges should not disqualify them from serving. But that is not what is happening. We are not debating the merits of those nominations, as Democratic Senators did when we opposed the most extreme handful of nominees of President Bush. What is new and particularly damaging about this Republican strategy of obstruction is that dozens of nominees reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, without Republican opposition, are still being delayed. The Senate has received letters from Chief Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Courts in California, Colorado, Illinois and the District of Columbia. They have all pleaded with us to end the blockade and confirm judges nominated to fill vacancies in their courts. The vacancies on the Federal courts around the country have doubled over the last 2 years and now are at the historically high level of 111. Fifty-one of these vacancies have been deemed judicial emergency vacancies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Due to the Republicans' obstruction, we have not been able to keep up with attrition over the last 2 years. No one can accuse this President of selecting nominees to meet an ideological agenda. Senator Sessions has acknowledged that a vast majority of these nominees are consensus nominees. These are well- qualified nominees with the support of their home State Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. The Judiciary Committee has not proceeded with a single nominee who was not supported by both home State Senators, and I have worked with all Republican Senators to ensure that they were included in the process. Democrats have worked to restore comity to the process. Regrettably, despite these efforts and the outstanding nominees before us, the Senate is not promptly considering judicial nominations. To the contrary, as the President has pointed out, nominees are being stalled who, if allowed to be considered, would receive unanimous or near unanimous support, be confirmed, and be serving in the administration of justice throughout the country. The North Carolina Bar Association recently urged the Senate to consider one of the nominees who was reported by the Judiciary Committee in a unanimous rollcall vote--19 to zero. Republicans have objected to his consideration since January 28. For more than 10 months, Judge Albert Diaz, a respected and experienced jurist who served in the Armed Forces, has been prevented from serving the people of North Carolina and the Fourth Circuit. He is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. He has the support of both his home state Senators, one a Democrat and one a Republican. Senator Burr asked nearly a year ago that the Judiciary Committee ``look for an expedited review and referral to the full Senate so that that deficiency on the fourth circuit can be filled.'' The Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee from South Carolina and Maryland, states also within the Fourth Circuit, also support him. The American Bar Association rated him well qualified. The North Carolina Bar Association describes him as ``very qualified and highly regarded.'' When will the blockade be lifted so that the Senate can confirm Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina? Judge Diaz and six other consensus nominees to the circuit courts are stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. Judge Ray Lohier of New York would fill one of the four current vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He is another former prosecutor with support from both sides of the aisle. His confirmation has been stalled for no good reason for more than 6 months. Scott Matheson is a nominee from Utah supported by Senator Hatch; he was reported without opposition. Mary Murguia, a nominee from Arizona supported by Senator Kyl, was reported without opposition. Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio is nominated to the Federal Circuit and was reported without opposition. Susan Carney of Connecticut was reported with the bipartisan support of 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee to serve on the Second Circuit. Justice James Graves of Mississippi was reported unanimously to serve on the Fifth Circuit. These are not nominees whose judicial philosophy Republicans even question. The President noted in his September letter to Senate leaders that the ``real harm of this political game-playing falls on the American people, who turn to the courts for justice'' and that the unnecessary delay in considering these noncontroversial nominations ``is undermining the ability of our courts to deliver justice to those in need . . . from working mothers seeking timely compensation for their employment discrimination claims to communities hoping for swift punishment for perpetrators of crimes to small business owners seeking protection from unfair and anticompetitive practices.'' If the Senate were allowed to consider the 38 judicial nominees that are currently on the Senate's Executive Calendar, their confirmations would raise the total from the historically low level of 41, where it currently stands, to almost 80. That would be in the range of judicial confirmations during President George H.W. Bush's first 2 years, 70, while resting below President Reagan's first 2 years, 87, and pale in comparison to the 100 confirmed in the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration or those confirmed during President Clinton's first 2 years, 127. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, I scheduled 26 hearings for the judicial nominees of a Republican President and the Judiciary Committee worked diligently to consider them. During the 2 years of the Obama administration, I have tried to maintain that same approach. The committee held 25 hearings for President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees this Congress. I have not altered my approach and neither have Senate Democrats. What has changed is that Senate Republicans, who used to contend that every judicial nominee reported by the Judiciary Committee is entitled to a vote, have reversed themselves and reverted to the practices they followed in obstructing President Clinton's judicial nominees. The bottom line is that the Senate has been allowed to consider and confirm just 41 Federal circuit and district court nominees. That is less than half of the 100 such nominees we proceeded to confirm during President Bush's first 2 years. When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee midway through President Bush's first tumultuous year in office, I worked very hard to make sure Senate Democrats did not perpetuate the ``judge wars'' as tit-for-tat. By refusing to proceed on President Clinton's nominations while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the 6 years they controlled the pace of nominations, Senate Republicans allowed judicial vacancies to rise to 110 by the end of the Clinton administration. As a result of their strategy, Federal circuit court vacancies doubled. When Democrats regained the Senate majority halfway into President Bush's first year in office, we turned away from these bad practices. As a result, overall judicial vacancies were reduced during the Bush years from more than 10 percent to less than 4 percent. During the Bush years, the Federal court vacancies were reduced from 110 to 34 and Federal circuit court vacancies were reduced from a high of 32 down to single digits. This progress has not continued with a Democratic President back in office. Instead, Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy they used during the Clinton administration of blocking the nominations of a Democratic President, again leading to skyrocketing vacancies. Last year the Senate confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges, the lowest total in 50 years. This year we have yet to confirm 30 Federal circuit and district judges. We are not even keeping up with retirements and attrition. As a result, judicial vacancies are now at 111, again more than 10 percent. Regrettably, the Senate is not being allowed to consider the consensus, mainstream judicial nominees favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee. It has taken nearly five times as long to consider President Obama's judicial nominations as it did to consider President Bush's during his first 2 years in office. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the 100 judges confirmed were considered by the Senate an average of 25 days from being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The average time for confirmed circuit court nominees was 26 days. By contrast, if the Senate were allowed to consider the 34 judicial nominees being stalled by Republican objection and they were all confirmed this week, the average time Federal circuit and district and circuit court judges have been forced to wait after being considered and favorably recommended by the Judiciary Committee since President Obama took office would be five times that of those confirmed during the first 2 years of the Bush administration. Time is running out in this Congress for Republicans to turn away from the disastrous strategy of blocking nominations across the board. The Senate's longstanding traditions demand that we reject this practice of obstruction. The Federal courts are suffering from rising vacancies and crushing caseloads. The victims are the American people who depend on the courts for justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will finally pass the bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2010, S. 372. I thank Senator Akaka and Senator Collins for their dedication to this legislation and for working with me and Senator Grassley on key changes to make the bill even stronger in its protection of whistleblowers. I have worked for years to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, whether by government or corporate employers, and this bill is an important step forward in that ongoing process. Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public and Congress to wrongdoing in Federal agencies. In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important governmental reform, and has even saved lives. Congress must encourage Federal employees with reasonable beliefs about government misconduct to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle, rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Unfortunately, whistleblower laws have been weakened by many court decisions that have ignored congressional intent and eroded employee protections. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act will help restore and expand the protections for Federal employees envisioned by the original Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Key provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act will offer additional methods to appeal whistleblower cases and provide additional protections to intelligence community employees and officers of the Transportation Security Administration. It will also correct the Federal circuit court's repeated misinterpretations of the whistleblower law and suspend that court's sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower cases for 5 years. Whistleblowers have proven to be important catalysts for much needed government change over the years. From corporate fraud to governmental misconduct to media integrity, whistleblowers have played an integral role in galvanizing reform. In these difficult financial times, we must be especially vigilant to ensure that public resources are not lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Restoring credibility to our whistleblower laws is an important part of that work. Before Congress adjourns, I hope the House of Representatives will quickly consider this legislation, and send it to the President to be signed into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator is absolutely correct. When we held these hearings, he was an indispensable part. This is an inexplicable anomaly of the law that reflects a different era. Had they been assembling, for example, this oil rig, had they had it on land and it exploded, they would be able to recover as anybody could. If it was an onshore oil rig--of course, we have many in this country and throughout the world--if they had been working on that and there had been an explosion and they lost their lives, there would have been remedies available. But because it was at sea and even if it is just barely at sea, the remedies are entirely different. To put it in laymen's terms, they are basically limited to the value of what is left. Of course, there is nothing left.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct. Basically what the Senate has said is, we will protect British Petroleum and Halliburton over the rights and needs of the families of 11 men who died because of negligence. Is this what the Senate has come to? Is this what it has come to? By our failure to even vote, our unwillingness to stand up and vote, our effort to do a maybe instead of a yes or no, we are sending a Christmas present. I suppose we should say Merry Christmas, British Petroleum, Merry Christmas, Halliburton. We protected you and saved you from having to pay for your negligence. That is a pretty cold signal to send to these families of the 11 men who died. Frankly, as I have often said, the Senate should be the conscience of the Nation. How do we express our conscience when we don't even have the courage to vote yes or no on a matter of this significance?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have alerted the other side I am about to make a unanimous consent request on an important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years we have gotten into this habit of: Nobody wants to vote yes or no, they want to vote maybe. It is easier to block things from even being considered. Frankly, in my State of Vermont people expect if they elect you to the Senate that you have the courage to vote yes or no, but not maybe. We just saw another example of this. We cannot even get a yes-or-no vote on Defense authorization at a time when our Nation is in two wars. We cannot get a yes-or-no vote; we get a maybe. I find it frustrating. Over and over we have done it today. People are prepared to vote yes or no, but the other side says, no; it is easier to vote maybe. Then you never have to explain anything. We all know what has happened in the Deepwater Horizon BP spill. A number of brave families' members were lost. I would note for the sake of the Senate, if they had been building the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, and they were assembling it on land and something was negligently done and someone lost their life, they could recover for the value of the life. Because of a quirk in the law, because it happened at sea, even though it may have been caused by the same thing, these people--their lives are almost valueless. There is a way to fix them. We have drawn, after months of negotiation, a very tightly put together piece of legislation that will only affect the families of the 11 hard-working men who died when the Deepwater Horizon was destroyed. I am going to make this so we can vote yes or no and not maybe. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of the Survivors Equality Act, S. 3463; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the Rockefeller-Leahy amendment that is at the desk be adopted; the bill, as amended, then be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and all statements and the text of the amendment that has been hotlined for more than a week be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, of course, this bill has been given an enormous amount of scrutiny by both Republicans and Democrats. Six months ago, I introduced the Survivors Equality Act, S. 3463, with Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse, to help the families of those who die on the high seas. In fact, the day of the hearing, we had Michelle Jones, pictured here, in our mind when we held that hearing. That same day, June 8, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the liability cap that harms victims' families. We heard testimony from Michelle Jones's brother-in-law, Chris Jones. He is the brother of Gordon Jones, one of those who died aboard the Deepwater Horizon. It was very moving testimony. I think everybody, both parties, felt the emotion in that room. A few weeks later, the Commerce Committee also held a hearing on the same matter. I think it is unfortunate and a slam to the families to say that this matter has not been vetted. The Commerce Committee also had a hearing. Then we had months and months of work, Republicans and Democrats meeting, trying to make as tightly drawn piece of legislation as possible. After these months and months of work, I hope the Senate is finally going to do justice to the families of the men who died when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. At least stand up and say yes or no. Vote either to give them justice or vote not to give them justice. Do not do this unfortunate habit we are getting into of voting maybe. Let's not vote on this bill. Let's not take a position one way or the other. We will object to the bill coming up. It allows everybody to be a maybe. It allows people to go and say: Well, we are so sympathetic for your family. We wish we could help your family. Certainly, if the bill comes up, I may vote. Well, we have a whole lot of people ready to vote for the bill. Vote yes; vote no. That is what I have been trying to do since that catastrophic event. We did have a lot of negotiations, and we did have to whittle it back at the request of people on the other side of the aisle. The proposal has been so narrow that it will help only the families of the 11 hard-working men who died when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded last April. So by saying there are a lot of things that can be done for them if one second before that oil rig left land when it was being constructed, if it exploded there and they lost their lives, but it is a different rule if you have gone 100 yards further, a few seconds later, and you are at sea. That is why I came to the floor today to seek the Senate's consent to pass this legislation without further delay. It is designed to provide a more equitable remedy under the Death on the High Seas Act, the Jones Act, for the survivors of those killed on Deepwater Horizon. When I refer to it as the difference between when it is on land or on sea, as the law is now, the families will be given far less protection simply because their loved ones died on the open seas rather than if they had died in a well, for example, if they are working at a well and there is an explosion, but the well is on land. That is not fair. It reminds me of an earlier era in our history. The law should be modernized for those families without further delay. Of course, I would like the modernization to be broader, to cover victims on cruise ships, for instance. Some here in this body have objected to covering victims on cruise ships. That is why I said: OK. You might not be willing to cover victims in other accidents on the high seas, but at least the U.S. Senate should not turn its back on the families of these 11 men. I am also concerned about timeliness. These victims' families' claims have been unnecessarily delayed because they are thoughtlessly lumped in with thousands of other claims for economic damage. It should be pretty easy to spot the 11 where the people died. This legislative proposal, on which I have worked with Senators Rockefeller, Whitehouse, and others, would ensure fairness and timeliness for these families. We have had strong bipartisan support. We have a number of Republicans who support this legislation. Senators on both sides of the aisle have heard from these families. They understand the inequities they face. The proposal has been circulating through the Senate for more than a week. It should not be stopped. Let us vote yes or no. If you don't like this legislation, vote against it. But don't vote maybe. Don't have the Senate give that kind of procedural slap in the face to these families by saying: We don't have the courage to vote yes or no so we are going to vote maybe. Time is running out for these 11 families to know they are going to be treated fairly and not be forced to wait for years to see if their losses are addressed. The legislation only applies to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the largest oil spill in our Nation's history. Let us act for the widows and children of these men before we head home to be with our own families during the holiday season. They need our help now. We should at least be able to agree to this limited fix. Again, vote yes or vote no. Don't vote maybe. Stop the months of delay. There is no justification for the failure to act on this deeply personal tragic issue. It has been pending for months. Both sides have been running hot lines on it for more than a week. It is a 5-page proposal. It is easy to understand. I will never forget the testimony of Chris Jones before the Judiciary Committee. His father was sitting there. He talked about his brother losing his life and meeting his brother's widow Michelle Jones. Michelle has lost the love of her life, but her two young sons have lost their father. This is not about politics. This should not be partisan. This is about justice for these kids who are facing a Christmas without their fathers, justice for widows who want closure, who are bravely fighting for their families. Can we not at least once in this body not vote maybe but have the courage to vote yes or no, not hide behind an objection to a bill coming up that many Republicans and Democrats support, at least allow people to be on record? Look at this family, say: I am going to vote yes or no, not, gee, I don't have time. We just voted maybe. I think it is unfortunate. It shows disdain for these families. I regret the objection. I ask unanimous consent that the draft of the Rockefeller, Leahy, and Schumer amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on October 15, 2010, we learned that next year Social Security beneficiaries will not receive a cost of living adjustment for the second year in a row because of the economic deflation, rather than inflation, our economy experienced in 2010. At a time when the economy continues to lag and seniors in Vermont and around the country will struggle to afford heat, food, and other daily living expenses, I believe strongly that Congress needs to act to help seniors who depend upon Social Security benefits. For decades, Social Security has represented a strong commitment to our Nation's seniors. Ever since Ida May Fuller of Vermont received the first Social Security check issued, vulnerable seniors have had a safety net to fall back on in retirement and to supplement individual retirement savings or pensions. Nearly 70 percent of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for at least half of their income, and Social Security is the sole source of income for 15 percent of recipients. I was proud to join Senator Sanders once again in cosponsoring the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which would provide all Social Security recipients, railroad retirees, SSI beneficiaries and adults receiving veterans' benefits with a one-time additional check for $250 in 2010, similar to the payment beneficiaries received as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Today, we have the opportunity to move to debate this important emergency relief for America's seniors. This legislation would benefit 58 million Americans and over 120,000 Vermonters, far too many of whom have seen a decline in their living standards as the economy worsened. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation and the Economic Policy Institute issued a report this fall that showed similar payments included in the Recovery Act to seniors stimulated the economy and was an effective job creator. A minority of Senators, however, plan on once again blocking this legislation from a full debate in the Senate. The minority party seems content to bend over backwards to pass an extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, which will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit, but helping seniors in tough economic times is just too costly a proposition. That is unfortunate, and I hope for enough support in the Senate to move this legislation forward. By supporting this bill, Senators have the opportunity to express our continued commitment to providing a safety net to our Nation's seniors and those with disabilities in this uncertain economy. I urge my fellow Senators to support the motion to invoke cloture on the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, November and December bring with them a contagious holiday spirit. During a time when many Vermonters are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes, community members across Vermont are stepping forward to provide a helping hand to their neighbors. I am proud that Vermont takes to heart our country's great tradition of offering a helping hand to those in need. While many of us were at home with our families this Thanksgiving, the staff and volunteers at the Vermont Boys & Girls Clubs of America were busy organizing food donations and cooking meals for the holiday to provide hot meals to those who might not otherwise have had a Thanksgiving dinner at all. In Rutland alone, the Boys & Girls Club cooked enough food to feed 100 people, with many of the ingredients donated by local farms. In Montpelier, the Washington County Youth Service Bureau and Boys & Girls Clubs staff and volunteers prepared turkey dinners to feed homeless Vermonters and financially secure residents alike, producing a real community dinner. In these tough economic times, community resources are vital to the well-being of all Vermonters. As these resources become scarcer, donations and volunteers become indispensible. Rutland and Montpelier are just a few examples of where Vermonters are volunteering in their communities this holiday season. I am proud to call Vermont home and to count these volunteers among my friends and neighbors. I commend them and all those who donated food for Thanksgiving meals, and I applaud all those who voluntarily step forward throughout the year to take the time to attend to the support and safety of Vermont's children and families. I ask unanimous consent that press articles detailing the work of the Vermont Boys & Girls Clubs and volunteers be printed in the Record. These articles include ``Boys and Girls Club serves local Thanksgiving dinner'' published by the Rutland Herald on November 24, 2010, and ``Thanksgiving Volunteers deliver--with community spirit--in Montpelier,'' published by the Times Argus on November 26, 2010.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 set to expire at the end of the year, the whole debate about what to do next needs to be based on fairness and honesty. Any additional tax relief we provide now must be targeted to those who need it most like those Vermont businesses looking to grow and expand their workforces and those Vermonters struggling to pay their bills, heat their homes, and put food on the table this winter. We must recognize the enormous cost of making these tax cuts permanent as even a short, 2-year extension of all tax cuts would cost us over $400,000,000,000 and the cost of extending tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 annually balloons to $700,000,000,000 over the next decade. We also must acknowledge that with a finite amount of Federal resources we will be forced to shortchange important government services for millions of Americans if we provide extravagant tax cuts to a handful of millionaires and large corporations. Like it or not, taxes are an essential way for Federal, State, and local governments pay for important services and projects that we access and use daily. Taxes pay for our schools and teachers; they maintain our roads and bridges; they support our military and veterans; and they sustain a host of other programs from food assistance to unemployment benefits to and medical care that help all Americans. It is the responsibility of Congress to make sure that the federal tax rates are fair and justified. Our tax system must strike an appropriate balance that allows hard-working Americans to keep much of their income to spend as they choose while still providing the government with enough revenue to pay for the important programs we rely upon. Unfortunately, over the past decade the U.S. Government has increasingly spent more money than it has received from taxes, causing our national debt to grow to unsustainable levels. Under the previous administration, for instance, we saw our Federal debt triple as President Bush pushed for trillions in tax cuts and two wars without offering a way to pay for them. I opposed these policies because I was concerned then, as I am now, that our soaring Federal debt will have devastating repercussions. I have serious concerns that fully extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts would be a major mistake if we are truly committed to helping our economy recover from the Great Recession and to putting our country back on the glide path to fiscal responsibility. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have led to record Federal deficits, contributed to the government's current financial woes, and have not helped many Americans who face the greatest financial burdens. Most disappointingly, the Bush tax cuts failed to ``trickle down'' to help those Americans most in need, while the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans benefited substantially. Unfortunately, many of these wealthy beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts have not injected that money directly into the economy to hire new workers or create new jobs. Why do we think that extending the income tax cuts to the top wage earners now will produce a different result now? I do think that Congress should make directed tax relief to help working families and to improve the economy. For instance, there are some Bush-era tax cuts that I support keeping on the books such as the increase in the child tax credit, the elimination of the marriage penalty, and the 10-percent tax bracket. In addition, I think we should retain many of the hiring incentives championed by President Obama that are providing needed assistance to small businesses in Vermont that looking to create job opportunities. These tax breaks have allowed Vermont companies to hire new workers and purchase new equipment for their business, thus creating demand for other new jobs to produce that equipment. But now is not the time to extend tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to companies that are sending American jobs overseas. I am greatly concerned that if we maintain these policies, our soaring federal debt will have devastating repercussions. We will become increasingly vulnerable to the foreign nationals who are collecting our debt. Our ability to provide promised Social Security and Medicare benefits will be jeopardized severely. And, our children and grandchildren will be left with an enormous debt that they cannot possibly be able to afford. That is why I will support the two cloture motions we are voting on today. While I prefer capping the tax cuts at $250,000, in the spirit of compromise I am willing to extend the relief to those with incomes under $1,000,000. These are both more fiscally responsible ways of moving forward than a blanket extension for a small group of millionaires. If the last election was a public outcry to restore fiscal sanity to Washington, then the last, major accomplishment of this Congress should not be putting billions more in debt on the American credit card.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 is an important piece of legislation that will clarify a Federal agency or officer's ability to remove State judicial proceedings to Federal court. The bill has strong support from both sides of the aisle, and was passed by the House of Representatives without opposition. I have worked with Senator Sessions on an amendment to further clarify the rules governing removal to Federal court of State judicial proceedings when judicial orders including subpoenas are issued to Federal agencies or officials. Existing law allows removal to Federal court of any ``civil action or criminal prosecution'' that is ``commenced in a State court'' against a Federal agency or officer. However, there is a question whether a subpoena directed toward a Federal agency or officer itself constitutes a ``civil action or criminal prosecution'' that allows removal under section 1442. While some courts have allowed removal in these situations, others have not. Compare Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 413-15, D.C. Cir. 1995 with Indiana v. Adams, 892 F.Supp. 1101, S.D. Ind. 1995, Alabama v. Stephens, 876 F.Supp. 263, M.D. Ala. 1995, Price v. Johnson, 600 F.3d 460, 5th Cir. 2010 (dismissing appeal of district court's refusal to allow removal of subpoena proceeding against congresswoman). The Removal Clarification Act of 2010 resolves this split in authority by amending section 1442 to clarify that the section allows removal of any proceeding in which a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought from or issued to a Federal agency or officer. Earlier versions of this bill did not expressly address whether removal under the new statute would be limited to just the subpoena proceeding, in a case that is otherwise purely between private litigants but in which a Federal agency or officer has been subpoenaed, or whether the whole case would be removed. Members in both the House and Senate agree that in cases involving only the issuance of a subpoena to a Federal agency or officer, only the subpoena proceeding should be removed and the remainder of the civil action or criminal prosecution should remain in State court. Some courts that currently allow removal of a subpoena proceeding have made it their practice to remove only that proceeding if the rest of the case is not otherwise removable. I cite e.g., Pollock v. Barbarosa Group, Inc., 478 F. Supp.2d 410, W.D.N.Y. 2007; In re Subpoena in Collins, 524 F.3d 249, D.C. Cir. 2008; Colorado v. Rodarte, 2010 WL 924099, D. Colo. 2010. Other courts, however, have held that the entire case should be removed, even if no Federal officer was a defendant in the underlying suit and the case is not otherwise removable. I cite e.g., Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450-51, 9th Cir. 1986; Ferrell v. Yarberry, 848 F.Supp. 121, E.D. Ark. 1994. Moreover, while these cases at least hold that the district court may remand the case to the State court once the subpoena proceeding is resolved, other courts hold that once a case is removed under section 1442, there is no authority to remand the case to the State court even after the Federal issue is resolved. I cite e.g., Jamison v. Wiley, 14 F.3d 222, 238-39, 4th Cir. 1994. To make clear that removal of a subpoena proceeding, or other minor proceeding, is limited only to that proceeding if the case is not otherwise removable, the Senate amendment to this bill adds a second sentence to section 1442(c) that provides: ``If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.'' The language of 1442(c) is intended to be broad because it seeks to encompass not only subpoenas for testimony or documents, but also any other kind of judicial process that state courts could direct to Federal officers in relation to the performance of their official duties. The parenthetical clause in the first sentence of 1442(c) specifying that the proceeding need not be ancillary is added because some states allow subpoenas to be issued, or direct other judicial orders toward persons, before a complaint has even been filed. This was the situation in the Price v. Johnson case, which occurred earlier this year. When such pre-suit proceedings occur, they cannot be described as ancillary because there is nothing for them to be ancillary to. Although the language in the first sentence of section 1442(c) is broad, I should make clear that it does not encompass all judicial proceedings. A proceeding in which a ``judicial order . . . is sought or issued'' means a minor proceeding, such as a subpoena proceeding, but does not include the complaint for relief itself. The second sentence of section 1442(c) would therefore not apply to a case in which a complaint for relief or a criminal prosecution has been brought against a Federal agency or officer, or a case that is removable under any other section of the United States Code. If the Federal agency or officer is a defendant in the underlying case, the normal rule, as described in section 3726 of Wright & Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure, would continue to apply: Because Section 1442(a)(1) authorizes removal of the entire case even if only one of the controversies it raises involves a federal officer or agency, the section creates a species of statutorily-mandated supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court can exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the supplemental claims if the federal agency drops out of the case, or even if the federal defendant remains a litigant. Whether the supplemental claims should be remanded if the federal officer's ``anchor'' claim is dismissed or settled, or if the supplemental claims have been asserted against non-federal parties, depends on considerations of comity, federalism, judicial economy, and fairness to litigants. Changes made by this bill to section 1442 are not intended to displace ``the requirement that federal officer removal must be predicated on the allegation of a colorable federal defense.'' I cite Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129, 1989. This legislation also does not displace the settled rule that ``the invocation of removal jurisdiction by a Federal officer does not revise or alter the underlying law to be applied. In this respect, it is a purely derivative form of jurisdiction, neither enlarging nor contracting the rights of the parties.'' I cite Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242, 1981. The new time limit created by section 1446(g) allows a Federal agency or officer subpoenaed to seek removal either within 30 days of receiving, through service, notice of when the subpoena is requested or issued or 30 days of receiving, through service, notice of when the same subpoena is sought to be enforced. This new subsection allows a Federal agency or officer to remove a pre-suit subpoena proceeding to Federal court before any complaint is filed, and also effectively allows a Federal officer who has been subpoenaed to wait until the subpoena is sought to be enforced before seeking removal. I thank Senator Sessions for working with me to clarify the House's bipartisan bill. I also thank Representative Hank Johnson for working with us to explain the purposes and intricacies of this procedural issue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. At this time--and I note that my colleague from Alabama is in the Chamber--I propound the following unanimous-consent request: I ask unanimous consent, as if in executive session, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1002, the nomination of James Michael Cole to be Deputy Attorney General; that there be 2 hours of debate with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that upon the use or yielding back of such time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am disappointed. The Republicans are saying there is a double standard. All of the Deputy Attorneys General nominated by Republican presidents have been confirmed, most by voice vote, within a month. This one has waited on the floor for over 4 months and we still cannot even get a vote. As Senators, we should all at least have the courage to vote yes or to vote no. Eventually, we have to stop voting maybe. It allows everybody to go home and say: I may be here on an issue or I may be there. We are Senators and we must have the courage to vote yes or to vote no. We cannot continue to vote maybe, especially on the No. 2 law enforcement officer of the United States. President Bush's first deputy, was confirmed within 24 hours of being reported from Committee, while James Cole has waited 6 months for a vote. Voting maybe is not a profile in courage in the Senate. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.