Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for taking another step down the long road towards peace. Last week the Saville Inquiry, the result of a 10-year investigation into the ``Bloody Sunday'' tragedy in Northern Ireland on January 30, 1972, was finally made public. The inquiry definitively concluded that British Army soldiers were responsible for the shooting deaths of 14 pro-Catholic marchers. The terrible events, which took place against a backdrop of years of rioting, paramilitary violence and police brutality, contributed to increased hatred and mistrust on both sides, and led to over two more decades of violence and terror for the people of Northern Ireland. The findings reversed those of a 1972 commission which had laid blame for the killings on the victims themselves. Parents passed away without the knowledge that their children killed that day were not at fault. Upon the release of the new report, British Prime Minister David Cameron publicly accepted responsibility for the killings and apologized on behalf of his country for the unjustified actions of the Army. He acknowledged the great complexity engrained in the dozens of years of fighting in Northern Ireland--thousands of people were killed and terrible atrocities committed by all parties. But he also stated that the facts in this report cannot be overlooked: British Army soldiers unjustly took the lives of innocent civilians. Self-reflection is an indispensable quality in a democracy. It is difficult for a nation to admit that the men and women protecting us are responsible for reprehensible acts, but it is undeniable that, in furtherance of truth and justice, no one in our society can be above the law. Lasting peace comes about through the hard work, honesty and patience of those on all sides. I extend my deepest condolences to the families of the victims and am grateful to them for their years of patience during the investigation. I commend the people of Northern Ireland for their continued commitment to resolving their differences through the political process, as challenging as it often is, and working to leave behind the violent divisions of the past. And I also applaud Prime Minister Cameron, the Inquiry, and the British people for acknowledging a painful truth after 38 years, and, in doing so, helping to further the cause of peace in Northern Ireland. I ask unanimous consent that the Prime Minister's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on June 7, the head of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, a U.N. supported body set up to investigate organized crime and clandestine groups in Guatemala, resigned. In a press conference, he highlighted problems with Guatemala's newly selected attorney general, who he accused of trying to undermine the Commission's investigations. He also described a general lack of cooperation from the Guatemalan Government in CICIG's mission. Not long ago, on April 5, I spoke in this Chamber of Guatemala's need for an attorney general with the integrity, experience, courage and determination to show that justice can be a reality for all the people of Guatemala regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or economic status. Unfortunately, President Colom's choice fell short on all counts. This concerns me greatly. The Commission was created three years ago, at the request of the Guatemalan Government and with the approval of the legislature. It was intended to support Guatemala in investigating and dismantling powerful criminal networks deeply entrenched in state institutions and to help strengthen the capacity of the country's dysfunctional judicial system. Since its creation, CICIG has received substantial political and financial backing from the international community, including the United States. I have been a strong supporter of the Commission, and I was encouraged that the Guatemalan Government and the legislature had the political courage to back a serious effort to challenge the organized criminal structures that threaten Guatemala's fragile democracy. Under the leadership of internationally respected Spanish jurist and prosecutor Carlos Castresana, the CICIG, with dedicated Guatemalan personnel from the Public Ministry, the police, and the support of the courts, has made significant, indeed historic, progress in combating organized crime and ending impunity. Its work has led to the successful investigation of high-profile cases, the arrest of dozens of government officials and ex-military officers, and the purge of thousands of police officers linked to illegal groups. Having seen that progress, I was saddened to learn of Director Castresana's resignation. I commend him, the Commission's staff, and the many Guatemalans who have supported the CICIG for their courage and resolve. The CICIG is a ground-breaking effort and one of the few successful strategies in the fight against organized crime and rampant institutional corruption in Guatemala. Its efforts must continue. Both the U.N. and the Guatemalan Government need to act swiftly and decisively if the CICIG is to continue as a meaningful body. I urge U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to appoint a new CICIG Commissioner with demonstrated expertise in investigating and prosecuting organized criminal networks so the advances of the CICIG continue under new leadership. Equally important is the integrity and continuity of CICIG's professional staff. In Guatemala, the government needs to address the problems that so frustrated Director Castresana. Fortunately, Guatemala's Constitutional Court annulled the selection of the attorney general, who subsequently resigned. This is a positive step, but it needs to be followed up. Guatemala's next attorney general should have a strong commitment to working closely with and supporting the efforts of the CICIG, as well as reform of the National Police, the establishment of a high impact court for cases of organized crime with heightened security for judges, witnesses and prosecutors, a maximum security jail, and other initiatives by the Guatemalan Legislature that would facilitate the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. It is not just the attorney general, however. Implementation of many of the CICIG's recommendations has been repeatedly delayed. The entire Guatemalan Government--the executive, legislature and the courts--must act decisively to demonstrate that it can implement urgent anti- impunity reforms, strengthen and professionalize its law enforcement and judicial institutions, and prove that it can be a partner in the fight against organized crime. Reforming the National Police, which is widely perceived as corrupt, ineffective and unaccountable, and whose officers are under-paid, under-trained, and under-equipped, is a critical priority. I hope there is convincing progress in these areas soon. The United States is providing assistance to bolster Guatemala's institutions, particularly through our Central America Regional Security Initiative. But as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I would find it difficult to justify investing further resources in Guatemala's judicial system unless its own government demonstrates a strong commitment to ending impunity and combating organized criminal networks and corruption, which must be rooted out from their entrenched positions within Guatemala's state institutions. I urge the Guatemalan Government to show, at this critical moment, its firm commitment to the CICIG and to taking the steps necessary to end impunity and strengthen the rule of law so the United States can continue to partner with Guatemala to tackle its many challenges.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Obama administration took another step toward ensuring equal treatment for all Americans by extending family leave to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-- LGBT--employees. Earlier this year, I praised President Obama for directing the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations ensuring hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. Now these same couples will be treated fairly when their children are sick, injured, or in need of care. Both of these measures promote the value of strong families and enduring relationships. There is a tragic history of discrimination in the workplace, but fortunately, we are making progress to end it. In 1993, Congress passed the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, allowing employees to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. The FMLA sought to promote equal employment opportunities for men and women. Unfortunately, the benefits of that law were not extended to LGBT families. Under the Department of Labor's new interpretation of ``son or daughter'' under the FMLA, a gay or lesbian employee may now take family and medical leave to care for a newly born, newly adopted, or sick child of the employee's same-sex partner, even if the employee does not have a biological or legal relationship with the child. The fight for equal rights protections continues in Congress. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, which would provide domestic partners of Federal employees all of the protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees, including participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and health insurance benefits. I also support the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2009, which would end the taxation of health benefits provided to domestic partners in workplaces that provide domestic partner health benefits to their employees. Respecting the rights of all hardworking Americans to care for their children in times of crisis is something every American should support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I honor Andrea Rogers, the CEO and founding executive director of the Flynn Center for the Performing Arts. I have had the privilege to congratulate Andrea over the years on her many accomplishments within the arts community, including her most recent award from the Vermont Arts Council, the Walter Cerf Lifetime Achievement in the Arts award. Today, I once again recognize her decades of invaluable service to Vermonters and I wish her future success as she retires from her executive director position at the Flynn Center for the Performing Arts after 30 years of dedicated service. In 1980, Andrea led a campaign to purchase an old movie house in downtown Burlington, with the hope of turning it into a home for performing arts groups. She was successful, and the old building became an independent theatre. Andrea organized many fundraising efforts to restore the antiquated space, and within the next 5 years, the Flynn succeeded in hosting over 350 performances presented by 50 different organizations. Today, 30 years later, the Flynn Theatre is known as the Flynn Center for the Performing Arts and is firmly embedded into Chittenden County and Vermont's cultural landscape. Since its founding, the Flynn has expanded and renovated its space, hosted thousands of diverse performances, opened an art gallery and created many educational programs. Because of Andrea's leadership, the Flynn has received several awards across the state, the country, and even the world. It was the only organization honored by both the Ford Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in 2000. The Flynn's educational program has also been recognized by the Dana Foundation as one of eight outstanding arts programs in the country, and has recently received the Outstanding Historic American Theatre Award at a national conference put on by the League of Historic American Theatres. I am proud to say that all of these accomplishments happened under Andrea's tenure. She is widely recognized for her passion for performing arts and community development, and her dedication has had an extraordinary impact on the arts in Vermont. Marcelle and I have spent some of our most memorable evenings at the Flynn, and Andrea's enthusiasm for her work and for her colleagues will be dearly missed. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following article to permanently recognize Andrea's contribution to the State of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, two years ago the United Nations' Human Rights Committee observed a problem that ``discourage[d] critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and ``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.'' That problem was ``libel tourism,'' a troubling trend of foreign lawsuits that have stifled Americans' First Amendment rights. Today, I am introducing legislation to put a stop to this harmful trend. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. Freedom of speech and the press enable vigorous debate over issues of national importance, and enable an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process. Authors, reporters and publishers are primary sources of this information, and their ability to disseminate their writings is critical to our democracy. Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker free speech protections that what our First Amendment affords. In many cases, the foreign plaintiff sought out that country, where there is no regard for freedom of the press, so that they could easily prevail. These suits occur regardless of whether the plaintiff or the publication has significant connections to the foreign forum. On a broad scale, this results in a race to the bottom, and causes U.S. persons to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard, to determine what they can or cannot write or publish. This is libel tourism. As the son of a printer, I consider this a matter of great national importance. Today, I am introducing with Senators Sessions, Specter, Schumer and Lieberman legislation that will ensure American authors, journalists and publishers are shielded from the chilling effects of libel tourism. This legislation guarantees that a foreign defamation judgment cannot be enforced in the United States if that country's libel standards are inconsistent with American law. Our legislation also provides American victims of unconstitutional libel suits the opportunity to clear their name by filing for a declaratory judgment in an American court. Over the past several years, the problem of libel tourism has grown. Today, countries whose weak libel laws impact American authors are no longer confined to a small number. England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American journalists and authors. This threat to American free speech must end, and the time to act is now. New accounts of libel tourism lawsuits emerge every day. This is because the dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has compounded their threat. The likelihood that a book or story will have some contact with a foreign country is simply that much higher, as is the probability that a foreign court will determine that it has a basis for asserting jurisdiction over an American author or publisher. As we heard at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, this has a dramatic chilling effect on Americans' free speech. The impact and extreme nature of these foreign libel lawsuits is best understood through examples. The most well known is the case of American journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book about the financiers of the 9/11 attacks. She did not market her book in England yet was sued for libel there by a Saudi businessman she linked to terrorism. The content of her publication would have been protected under our laws, but a British court applying its laws issued a multimillion dollar default judgment against her. Today, Ms. Ehrenfeld continues to experience reluctance from American publishers who fear that plaintiffs will target her and bring another libel action against anything she writes on the subject of terrorism financing. The scientific community has also been affected by libel tourism. An article last year in New Scientist magazine notes that now ``Challenging the scientific validity of a product or claim can be fraught with danger. . . [because] such challenges are leaving scientists and science writers [to] fac[e] an expensive libel action before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.'' Publications exposing financial improprieties, consumer protection issues, medical malpractice, and sexual abuse have all fallen victim to libel tourism lawsuits around the world. Even Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in England. Mr. Polanski, a fugitive from justice who fled America after being convicted of sexually abusing a young girl, filed the suit in 2004. He has fought extradition while living in Europe. The Vanity Fair article recounted a story of his alleged aggressive sexual advances made just after his wife was murdered, and portrayed him as being insensitive to her death. The article was written in the U.S., edited in the U.S., and primarily sold in the U.S., but the British court claimed jurisdiction, and ruled in favor of Mr. Polanski. Foreign libel judgments impact American authors' livelihood, credibility and employment potential. They also have the potential to limit the types of books and articles that talented and reputable authors can get published in the future. But most importantly, their suppression limits the information that Americans have a constitutional right to access. Journalists writing about issues of national security and safety should not be chilled. These lawsuits are designed to stifle the dissemination of that information in both the United States and the world. Journalists willing to investigate and write about such important issues deserve protection. I am encouraged that some countries have taken steps to strengthen their libel protections and jurisdictional requirements in the wake of these lawsuits, but that is not enough. As one country tightens its libel protections, another may just emerge as the next-best-available forum of choice for libel plaintiffs willing to travel to file suit. I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, for working with me on this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Specter, for their support in moving toward a legislative compromise on this important issue. Their bills provided a valuable basis from which the bipartisan compromise that we are introducing today emerged. We cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country. What we can do, however, is ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine our First Amendment or due process rights. We can also provide American authors and reporters the ability to clear their name in our courts. I hope all Senators will support our bipartisan effort to pass this important legislation this summer to protect the free speech rights of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, two years ago the United Nations' Human Rights Committee observed a problem that ``discourage[d] critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and ``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.'' That problem was ``libel tourism,'' a troubling trend of foreign lawsuits that have stifled Americans' First Amendment rights. Today, I am introducing legislation to put a stop to this harmful trend. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. Freedom of speech and the press enable vigorous debate over issues of national importance, and enable an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process. Authors, reporters and publishers are primary sources of this information, and their ability to disseminate their writings is critical to our democracy. Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker free speech protections that what our First Amendment affords. In many cases, the foreign plaintiff sought out that country, where there is no regard for freedom of the press, so that they could easily prevail. These suits occur regardless of whether the plaintiff or the publication has significant connections to the foreign forum. On a broad scale, this results in a race to the bottom, and causes U.S. persons to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard, to determine what they can or cannot write or publish. This is libel tourism. As the son of a printer, I consider this a matter of great national importance. Today, I am introducing with Senators Sessions, Specter, Schumer and Lieberman legislation that will ensure American authors, journalists and publishers are shielded from the chilling effects of libel tourism. This legislation guarantees that a foreign defamation judgment cannot be enforced in the United States if that country's libel standards are inconsistent with American law. Our legislation also provides American victims of unconstitutional libel suits the opportunity to clear their name by filing for a declaratory judgment in an American court. Over the past several years, the problem of libel tourism has grown. Today, countries whose weak libel laws impact American authors are no longer confined to a small number. England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American journalists and authors. This threat to American free speech must end, and the time to act is now. New accounts of libel tourism lawsuits emerge every day. This is because the dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has compounded their threat. The likelihood that a book or story will have some contact with a foreign country is simply that much higher, as is the probability that a foreign court will determine that it has a basis for asserting jurisdiction over an American author or publisher. As we heard at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, this has a dramatic chilling effect on Americans' free speech. The impact and extreme nature of these foreign libel lawsuits is best understood through examples. The most well known is the case of American journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book about the financiers of the 9/11 attacks. She did not market her book in England yet was sued for libel there by a Saudi businessman she linked to terrorism. The content of her publication would have been protected under our laws, but a British court applying its laws issued a multimillion dollar default judgment against her. Today, Ms. Ehrenfeld continues to experience reluctance from American publishers who fear that plaintiffs will target her and bring another libel action against anything she writes on the subject of terrorism financing. The scientific community has also been affected by libel tourism. An article last year in New Scientist magazine notes that now ``Challenging the scientific validity of a product or claim can be fraught with danger. . . [because] such challenges are leaving scientists and science writers [to] fac[e] an expensive libel action before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.'' Publications exposing financial improprieties, consumer protection issues, medical malpractice, and sexual abuse have all fallen victim to libel tourism lawsuits around the world. Even Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in England. Mr. Polanski, a fugitive from justice who fled America after being convicted of sexually abusing a young girl, filed the suit in 2004. He has fought extradition while living in Europe. The Vanity Fair article recounted a story of his alleged aggressive sexual advances made just after his wife was murdered, and portrayed him as being insensitive to her death. The article was written in the U.S., edited in the U.S., and primarily sold in the U.S., but the British court claimed jurisdiction, and ruled in favor of Mr. Polanski. Foreign libel judgments impact American authors' livelihood, credibility and employment potential. They also have the potential to limit the types of books and articles that talented and reputable authors can get published in the future. But most importantly, their suppression limits the information that Americans have a constitutional right to access. Journalists writing about issues of national security and safety should not be chilled. These lawsuits are designed to stifle the dissemination of that information in both the United States and the world. Journalists willing to investigate and write about such important issues deserve protection. I am encouraged that some countries have taken steps to strengthen their libel protections and jurisdictional requirements in the wake of these lawsuits, but that is not enough. As one country tightens its libel protections, another may just emerge as the next-best-available forum of choice for libel plaintiffs willing to travel to file suit. I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, for working with me on this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Specter, for their support in moving toward a legislative compromise on this important issue. Their bills provided a valuable basis from which the bipartisan compromise that we are introducing today emerged. We cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country. What we can do, however, is ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine our First Amendment or due process rights. We can also provide American authors and reporters the ability to clear their name in our courts. I hope all Senators will support our bipartisan effort to pass this important legislation this summer to protect the free speech rights of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I apologize for the voice. There is a fair amount of pollution in the air. It will be much better as soon as I get to Vermont at the end of the week. Mr. President, this evening the Senate is being allowed to confirm a few more of the 26 judicial nominations that have been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the past several months, but that continue to be stalled by the Republican leadership. We have yet to be allowed to consider nominations reported last November. In addition to the three nominations being considered today, there are more than a dozen more judicial nominations that were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, and a total of almost two dozen that are being held up without good reason. There is no excuse for these months of delay. The Senate Republican leadership refuses to enter into time agreements on these nominations. Their stalling and obstruction is unprecedented. They refuse to enter into a time agreement to consider the North Carolina nominees to the Fourth Circuit, who were reported by the committee in January, one unanimously and one with only a single negative vote. They refuse to enter into a time agreement to debate and vote on the Sixth Circuit nominee from Tennessee who was reported last November. I have told Senator Alexander that all Democrats are prepared to vote on that nominee and have agreed to do so since November. It is his own leadership that continues to obstruct the nominee from Tennessee. The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. A useful comparison is that in 2002, the second year of the Bush administration, the Democratic Senate majority's hard work led to the confirmation of 72 Federal circuit and district judges nominated by a President from the other party. In this second year of the Obama administration, we have confirmed just 19 so far--72 to 19. In the first 2 years of the Bush administration, we confirmed a total of 100 Federal circuit and district court judges. So far in the first 2 years of the Obama administration, the Republican leadership has successfully obstructed all but 31 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--100 to 31. Today that number will rise, but to just 34. Meanwhile Federal judicial vacancies around the country hover around 100. By this date in President Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 57 of his judicial nominees. Despite the fact that President Obama began sending us judicial nominations 2 months earlier than did President Bush, the Senate has to date only confirmed 31 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--57 to 31. Last year, Senate Republicans refused to move forward on judicial nominees. The Senate confirmed the fewest number of judges in 50 years. The Senate Republican leadership allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered and confirmed despite the availability of many more for final action. They have continued their obstruction throughout this year. By every measure the Republican obstruction is a disaster for the Federal courts and for the American people. To put this into historical perspective, consider this: In 1982, the second year of the Reagan administration, the Senate confirmed 47 judges. In 1990. the second year of the George H.W. Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 55 judges. In 1994, the second year of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed 99 judges. In 2002, the second year of the George W. Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 72 judges. The only year comparable to this year's record- setting low total of 16 was 1996, when the Republican Senate majority refused to consider President Clinton's judicial nominees and only 17 were confirmed all session. Senate Democrats moved forward with judicial nominees whether the President was Democratic--1994--or Republican--1982, 1990, 2002--and whether we were in the Senate majority--1990, 1994, 2002--or in the Senate minority--1982. Senate Republicans, by contrast, have shown an unwillingness to consider judicial nominees of Democratic Presidents-- 1996, 2009, 2010. Over the last recess, I sent a letter to Senator McConnell and to the majority leader concerning these matters. In that letter, I urged, as I have since last December, the Senate to schedule votes on these nominations without further obstruction or delay. I called on the Republican leadership to work with the majority leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus nominations--many, like those finally being considered today, I expect will be confirmed unanimously--and consent to time agreements on those on which debate is requested. As I said in the letter, if there are judicial nominations that Republicans truly wish to filibuster--after arguing during the Bush administration that such action would be unconstitutional and wrong--then they should so indicate to allow the majority leader to seek cloture to end the filibuster. It is outrageous that the majority leader may be forced to file cloture petitions to get votes on the North Carolina, Tennessee and other nominees. The three nominees being considered today were all reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in March, more than 3 months ago. They could and should have been confirmed long before now. They are supported by their home State Senators. I congratulate them on their confirmation today. After these votes, there will still be 23 judicial nominees favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee being stalled from Senate consideration by the Republican leadership. We should change this course, and schedule confirmation votes without further delay. Mr. President, I realize about half the time remaining is mine. No one else is seeking recognition. First off, I wish to thank Senator Isakson for his kind words earlier. As I announced last month, the confirmation hearing on the President's nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will begin next Monday. On Monday, I will give each Senator who is a member of the committee an opportunity to deliver an opening statement. After the nominee is presented to the committee, she will proceed with her opening statement. On Tuesday morning we will ask questions of the nominee. I hope that we will conclude the hearing by the end of the week, including testimony from a few public witnesses, as has become our custom. Over the last few weeks, I have come to the Senate floor to outline the qualifications and achievements of the nominee, and to comment on the attacks that have been launched against her. I have noted my disappointment that too many Republican Senators seem predisposed to oppose the nomination. When he set out to find a well-qualified nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the President said this: I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how laws affect the daily realities of people's lives--whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in our nation. In introducing Solicitor General Kagan as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama praised her ``understanding of the law, not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people.'' President Obama is not alone in recognizing the value of judges and Justices who are aware that their duties require them to understand how the law works, and the effects it has in the real world. Within the last month, two Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have made the same point. Last month, Justice Anthony Kennedy told a joint meeting of the Palm Beach and Palm Beach County Bar Associations that, as a Justice: You certainly can't formulate principles without being aware of where those principles will take you, what their consequences will be. Law is a human exercise and if it ceases to be that it does not deserve the name law. In addition, Justice David Souter, who retired and was succeeded by Justice Sotomayor last year, delivered a thoughtful commencement address at Harvard University. He spoke about judging and explained why thoughtful judging requires consideration of human experience and grappling with the complexity of constitutional questions in a way that takes the entire Constitution into account. He spoke about the need to ``keep the constitutional promises our nation has made.'' Justice Souter concluded: If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed that charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people. Justice Souter understood the real-world impact of the Supreme Court's decisions, as does, I believe, his successor Justice Sotomayor. Across a range of fields including bankruptcy, the fourth amendment, statutory construction, and campaign finance, Justice Sotomayor has written and joined opinions that have paid close attention to the significance of the facts in the record, to the considered and longstanding judgments of the Congress, to the arguments on each side, to the Supreme Court's precedents, and to the real-world ramifications of the Supreme Court's decisions. She has voted to keep the courthouse doors open in important employment discrimination and pension rights cases. A hallmark of real-world judging is acknowledging the challenges of construing the Constitution's broad language given our social and technological developments. I am talking about getting away from sloganeering and being concrete. I appreciate Justices like Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David Souter and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who are grounded, who draw on the lessons of experience and use common sense. In the real world of judging, there are complex cases with no easy answers. In some, as Justice Souter pointed out, different aspects of the Constitution point in different directions, toward different results, and need to be reconciled. This approach to judging is not only mainstream, it is as old as the Constitution itself and has been evident throughout American history. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1819 landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland that for the Constitution to contain detailed delineation of its meaning ``would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind.'' He understood, as someone who served with Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, that its terms provide ``only its great outlines'' and that its application in various circumstances would need to be deduced. The ``necessary and proper'' clause of the Constitution entrusts to Congress the legislative power ``to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution'' the enumerated legislative powers of article I, section 8, of our Constitution as well as ``all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.'' In construing it, Chief Justice Marshall explained that expansion clause ``is in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.'' He went on to declare how, in accordance with a proper understanding of the ``necessary and proper'' clause and the Constitution, Congress should not by judicial fiat be deprived ``of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to human affairs'' by judicial fiat. Chief Justice Marshall understood the Constitution, knew its text and knew the Framers. He rejected stagnant construction of the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland was the Supreme Court's first construction of the ``necessary and proper'' clause. The most recent was just last month in United States v. Comstock. That case upheld the power of Congress to enact the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which included provisions authorizing civil commitment of sexually dangerous Federal prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and were mentally ill. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall's language from McCullough, Justice Breyer wrote in an opinion joined by a majority of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Roberts, about the ``foresight'' of the Framers who drafted a Constitution capable of resilience and adaptable to new developments and conditions. Justice Breyer's judicial philosophy is well known. A few years ago, he authored ``Active Liberty'' in which he discussed how the Constitution and constitutional decisionmaking protects our freedoms and, in particular, the role of the American people in our democratic government. When he writes about how our constitutional values applying to new subjects ``with which the framers were not familiar,'' he looks to be faithful to the purposes of the Constitution and the consequences of various decisions. During the Civil War, in the 1863 Prize Cases decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of President Lincoln's decision to blockade southern ports before a formal congressional declaration of war against the Confederacy. Justice Grier explained that it was no less a war because it was a rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States. Noting that Great Britain and other European nations had declared their neutrality in the conflict, he wrote that the Court should not be asked ``to affect a technical ignorance of the existence of a war, which all the world acknowledges to be the greatest civil war known in the history of the human race.'' That, too, was real-world judging. In the same way, the Supreme Court decided more recently in Rasul v. Bush, that there was jurisdiction to decide claim under the Great Writ securing our freedom, the writ of habeas corpus, from those in U.S. custody being held in Guantanamo. Justice Stevens, a veteran of World War II, engaged in real-world judging, recognizing that the United States exercised full and exclusive authority at Guantanamo if not ultimate, territorial sovereignty. The ploy by which the Bush administration had attempted to circumvent all judicial review of its actions was rejected recognizing that ours is a government of checks and balances. Examples of real-world judging abound in the Supreme Court's decisions upholding our individual freedoms. For example, the First Amendment expressly protects freedom of speech and the press, but the Court has applied it, without controversy, to television, radio broadcasting, and the Internet. Our privacy protection from the fourth amendment has been tested but survived the invention of the telephone and institution of Government wiretapping because the Supreme Court did not limit our freedom to tangible things and physical intrusions but sought to ensure privacy consistent with the principles embodied in the Constitution. Real-world judging is precisely what the Supreme Court did in its most famous and admired modern decision in Brown v. Board of Education. I recently saw the marvelous production of the George Stevens, Jr., one-man play ``Thurgood'' starring Laurence Fishburne. It was an extraordinary evening recalling one of the great legal giants of America. At one point, Justice Marshall reads a few lines from the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in 1954 that declared racial discrimination in education unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren had written: In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the [Fourth] Amendment was adopted or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. That was real-world judging that helped end a discriminatory--and dark--chapter in our history. The Supreme Court did not limit itself to Constitution as written in 1787. At that point in our early history, ``We the People'' did not include Native Americans or African-American slaves, and our laws failed to accord half the population equality or the right to vote because they were female. Real-world judging takes into account that the world and our Constitution have changed since 1788. It took into account not only the Civil War, but the Civil War amendments to the Constitution adopted between 1865 and 1870. Would anyone today, even Justice Scalia, really read the eighth amendment's limitation against cruel and unusual punishment to allow the cutting off of ears that was practiced in colonial times? Of course not, because the standard of what is cruel and unusual punishment was not frozen for all time in 1788. Does anyone dispute today that the fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are correctly applied to the States through the due process clause of the 14th amendment? Literally, the freedoms in our Bill of Rights were expressed only as limitations on the authority of Congress. Does anyone think that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment cannot be read to prohibit gender discrimination? It was most assuredly not women that its drafter had in mind when it was adopted. Our Constitution was written before Americans had ventured into outer space, or cyberspace. It was written before automobiles, airplanes or even steamboats. Yet the language and principles of the Constitution remain the same as it is applied to new developments. The Constitution mentions our ``Armed Forces'' but there was no air force when the Constitution was written. Similarly, in construing the ``commerce clause'' and the intellectual property provisions to provide copyright and patent protection for ``writings and discoveries,'' the Supreme Court has engaged in real-world judging as it applies our constitutional principles to the inventions, creations and conditions of the 21st century. Jefferson and Madison may have mastered the quill pen, but never envisioned modern computers. There are unfortunately occasions on which the current conservative, sometimes activist, majority on the Supreme Court did not engage in real-world judging. One such case, the Lilly Ledbetter case, would have perpetuated unequal pay for women, by using a rigid, results-oriented, cramped reading of a statute to defy congressional intent. We corrected that case by statute. Similarly, the Gross decision seeks to close our courts to those treated unfairly. The legislature must correct it. And, of course, the Citizens United case wrongly reversed 100 years of legal developments to unleash corporate influence in elections. We saw yet another troubling example in a narrow 5-4 decision handed down earlier today in a case called Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, in which the conservative activists in the majority, once again, have ruled in favor of big business at the expense of hardworking Americans. With this narrow decision, the five Justices in the majority have overridden the intent of Congress in passing the Federal Arbitration Act and abandoned our longstanding tradition of allowing people to go to court to challenge unconscionable agreements. Just as it was in the wake of the Ledbetter case, it will be up to Congress to correct this error and undo the damage it has done to thousands of people who have no choice but to sign unfair agreements in order to get a job and put food on their table for their families. The issue before the Court was whether a court or an arbitrator should decide the enforceability of an agreement to settle disputes that may arise. Justice Stevens, writing for the four dissenting Justices noted that the question whether a legally binding arbitration agreement existed is an issue that the Federal Arbitration Act assigns to the courts. Congress did not intend to prevent employers from having access to an impartial court's determination whether the agreement was unconscionable. Today's ruling turns that purpose, and even the Court's own precedent, upside down. It is estimated that more than one hundred million Americans work under binding mandatory arbitration agreements. Most Americans are not even aware that according to the new Supreme Court ruling, they will have waived their constitutional rights to a jury trial when they accept a job to provide for their families. This divisive decision not only closes the courthouse doors to millions of American workers and their families, it gives big business even more incentive to require their employees to sign one-sided arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Considering how the law will work in the real world is an indispensable part of a judge's responsibility. I expect that Elena Kagan learned that lesson early in her legal career when she clerked for Justice Marshall. In 1993, upon the death of Justice Thurgood Marshall, she observed: Above all, he had the great lawyer's talent . . . for pinpointing a case's critical fact or core issue. That trait, I think, resulted from his understanding of the pragmatic--of the way in which the law acted on people's lives. If confirmed, Elena Kagan would be the third member of the current Supreme Court to have had experience working in all three branches of the government prior to being nominated. Some have criticized her work during the Clinton administration as political. I suggest that a fair reading of her papers indicates that she has the ability to take many factors into account in analyzing legal problems and that her skills include practicality, principle and pragmatism. These were all used in their service to the American people by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Souter and Stevens. I have always thought that a nominee's judicial philosophy was important. Nearly 25 years ago, I noted in an earlier hearing for a Supreme Court nominee: There can hardly be an issue closer to the heart of the Senate's role than a full and public exposition of the nominee's approach to the Constitution and to the role of the courts in discerning and enforcing its commands. That is what I mean by judicial philosophy. It is only recently that some Republican Senators conceded that judicial philosophy matters. I hope this means that they will abandon the false premise that all a Justice does is mechanically apply obvious legal dictates to reach preordained outcomes. There is more to serving the country as a Supreme Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice needs to exercise judgment, should appreciate for the proper role of the courts in our democracy, and should consider the consequences of decisions on the fundamental purposes of the law and in the lives of Americans--in other words, engage in real-world judging. I intend to ask the nominee about her judicial philosophy and about real-world judging. That is what I have done through the course of a dozen Supreme Court nominations hearings. Real-world judging is an important part of American constitutional life. As I have said, I reject the ideological litmus test that Senate Republicans would apply to Supreme Court nominees. Unlike those on the right who drove President Bush to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers and those who opposed Justice Sotomayor, I do not require every Supreme Court nominee to swear fealty to the judicial approach and outcomes ordained by adhering to the narrow views of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. I expect judges and Justices to faithfully interpret the Constitution and apply the law, and also to look to the legislative intent of our laws and to consider the consequences of their decisions. I hope that judges and Justices will respect the will of the people, as reflected in the actions of their democratically elected representatives in Congress, and serve as a check on an overreaching executive. What others seem to want is assurance that a nominee for the Supreme Court will rule the way they want so that they will get the end results they want in cases before the Supreme Court. Lack of such assurances was why they vetoed President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, the third woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court in our history and the only one not to be confirmed. They forced Ms. Miers to withdraw even while Democrats were preparing to proceed with her hearing. They do not want an independent judiciary. They demand Justices who will guarantee the results they want. That is their ideological litmus test. As critics level complaints against Elena Kagan, I suspect that the real basis of that discontent will be that the nominee will not guarantee a desired litigation outcome. Of course that is not judging. That is not even umpiring. That is fixing the game. It is conservative activism plain and simple. It is the kind of conservative activism we saw when the Supreme Court in Ledbetter disregarded the plain language and purpose of title VII. It is the kind of activism we saw when, this past January, a conservative activist majority turned its back on the Supreme Courts own precedents, the considered judgment of Congress, the interests of the American people and our long history of limiting corporate influence in elections in their Citizens United decision. We can do better than that. In fact, we always have done better than that. In reality, we can expect Justices who are committed to do the hard work of judging required of the Supreme Court. In practice, this means that we want Justices who will pay close attention to the facts in every case that comes before them, to the arguments on every side, to the particular language and purposes of the statutes they are charged with interpreting, to their own precedents, to the traditions and longstanding historical practices of this Nation, and to the real-world ramifications of their decisions. Judging is not just textual and is not automatic. If it were, a computer could do it. If it were, important decisions would not be made 5 to 4. The resilience of the Constitution is that its great concepts and phrases are not self-executing. They involve constitutional values that need to be applied. Cases often involve competing constitutional values. In the hard cases that come before the Court in the real world, we want--and need--Justices who have the good sense to appreciate the significance of the facts in the cases in front of them as well the ramifications of their decisions in human and institutional terms. I expect in close cases that hard-working Justices will sometimes disagree about results. I do not expect to agree with every decision of every Justice. I understand that. I support judicial independence. I voted for Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor and Justice Souter, who were all nominees of Republican Presidents. A year ago, most Republican Senators opposed the nomination of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, in spite of her outstanding record for more than 17 years as a Federal district and court of appeals judge. Most Republican Senators opposed Justice Sotomayor's nomination not because she lacked the requisite professional qualifications or because there were issues about her character or integrity. Her record was impeccable. Sadly, the complaints about both Justice Sotomayor and now being echoed in opposition to Solicitor General Kagan are based on the two nominees' unwillingness to promise to deliver results that align with a narrow political ideology. We 100 who are charged with giving our advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations should consider whether those nominated have the skills, temperament and good sense to independently assess in every case the significance of the facts and the law and real-world ramifications of their decisions. I have urged Republican and Democratic Presidents to nominate people from outside the judicial monastery because I think real-world experience is helpful and because I know that real-world judging matters in the lives of the American people. The American people live in a real world of great challenges. We have a guiding charter that provides great promise. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court functions in the real world that affects all Americans. Judicial nominees need to appreciate that simple, undeniable fact. history--segregation. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to honor Vermont's leading policymaker, Steve Kimbell, who announced his retirement on May 20 of this year. For over three decades, Mr. Kimbell has been a major presence within the political world of Vermont and is noted as the most respected and influential policy maker to walk the halls of our Statehouse. Mr. Kimbell started his career as a lawyer at Vermont Legal Aid after completing his juris doctor from the University of Michigan Law School. Only a few years later, he was hired as lieutenant governor candidate Madeleine Kunin's campaign manager and went on to be her State planning director after she was elected Governor. Mr. Kimbell then partnered with Governor Kunin's former press secretary Bob Sherman to form Kimbell Sherman Ellis, a government and communications company that has grown into the most successful firm of its kind in the State. Kimbell Sherman Ellis developed a nationwide clientele and has additional offices in Washington, DC and Massachusetts. Along with advising and policymaking for Vermont State government, the firm provides legislative and regulatory strategy in government affairs and manages marketing and public relations campaigns nationwide. Steve Kimbell has been credited with helping to shape almost every piece of major legislation to pass through the Vermont Statehouse. I offer my congratulations to Mr. Kimbell upon his retirement. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Rutland Herald that depicts the contributions that Steve Kimbell has made to the State of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Sunday, June 20, is World Refugee Day. On June 20, 2001, we recognized World Refugee Day for the first time, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. At the end of the last century, war and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia left many people without a home or the protection of their country of origin. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the subsequent wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo forced refugees to flee to Tanzania and other neighboring states. As of last fall, over 300,000 individuals in Tanzania were still waiting for safe, third country resettlement. The dissolution of the former Soviet Union, followed by war and ethnic strife in Chechnya, the Caucasus, and Central Asian successor states, created millions of refugees and internally displaced persons. Some of these former Soviet citizens were left stateless and remain so, unable to claim the rights or protection of any nation. Despite these tragic events, the first World Refugee Day was an occasion of great hope. It provided an opportunity to celebrate the perseverance of refugees as they begin new lives in foreign lands, join new communities, learn new languages, and help their families adjust. The inaugural World Refugee Day celebrated the hard work of organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other voluntary agencies dedicated to serving refugees. The day also acknowledged the personal contributions of volunteers in the United States and around the world to help refugees resettle in their communities. Finally, World Refugee Day raised awareness about the challenging conditions faced by refugees, whether they are fleeing violence and persecution, or waiting in a camp, hoping that a safe nation will welcome them and provide them security. The last 10 years have not been easy for refugees. War and conflict around the globe have produced more refugees, yet the financial crisis and global economic downturn have made it more difficult for comparatively wealthy countries to contribute funds to support refugees and resettlement programs. For refugees recently resettled in the United States, the high unemployment rate, increased demand for low income housing, and strain on community service providers has made it more difficult for these new Americans to start to build their new lives. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, certain changes to U.S. asylum law were enacted that have the effect of denying protection to genuine refugees, such as child soldiers and women forced into sexual slavery, if their coerced actions are labeled as ``material support'' for terrorism. Throughout this difficult time, I have remained proud of the role that our country plays in supporting refugees and internally displaced persons abroad and helping refugees resettle in the United States. Since the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been resettled in the United States. My home State of Vermont has welcomed more than 5,300 refugees since 1989. In 2001, the same year as the first World Refugee Day, the first group of the ``Lost Boys'' of Sudan was resettled in Vermont. These boys had traveled hundreds of miles by foot to escape war and ethnic- and religious-based persecution. They were warehoused in refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia before being resettled in the United States. In the 9 years since they have arrived in Vermont, many have graduated from college, and some have gone on to attend graduate school. Vermont has received refugees from across the globe, including Bosnia, Burundi, Vietnam, Somalia, and Russia. Hundreds of Vermonters have volunteered to help these refugees adapt to life in Vermont, welcoming them into their homes, schools, and places of worship. The newcomers have had a profound effect on life in Vermont, starting small businesses, excelling in local soccer teams, creating art, running community gardens, and sharing their cultures. In one Vermont school district, all signs are in English, Vietnamese, and Serbo-Croatian, reflecting just a few of the many languages spoken by the diverse student population. Not only do the Vermont-born students learn a little more about the world from their classmates who are refugees, but they also learn an important lesson about the resolve and durability of the human spirit. While I am proud of the United States' long-standing commitment to refugees, I believe that we as lawmakers can do better for the world's most vulnerable populations. That is why I introduced S.3113, the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. The bill will bring the United States back into compliance with the Refugee Convention. Through modifications to the statute and misinterpretations of law in court decisions, the United States is falling short in some areas of refugee protection. The bill corrects serious problems in our law, such as the material support provision, which can prevent innocent victims of persecution from gaining protection. It also repeals the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers in the United States. The deadline was unnecessary when it was added to the law in 1996, and remains unnecessary now. The bill also improves due process protections for asylum seekers without lowering the standards that one must meet in order to gain refugee status. For resettled refugees in the United States, the bill ensures that per capita grants to assist these new Americans are adjusted every year to reflect the cost of living and inflation. The Obama administration raised the per capita grant level this year after it had languished at an unacceptably low level for years. I commend that action, but want to ensure the number does not remain stagnant. I thank Senators Levin, Akaka, Durbin, and Burris for their support of the Refugee Protection Act. I hope that on World Refugee Day, others will join us in helping victims of persecution worldwide.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation recently celebrated Memorial Day, honoring the sacrifice and the service of our brave men and women in uniform. Yesterday was Flag Day, and before too long we will celebrate the Fourth of July. I wish to speak about Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. I thought it might be good to set the record straight about some of the charges being leveled at President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Those intent on opposing this nomination--just as they seem to undercut the President no matter what he does--have searched high and low to find a basis to oppose this intelligent and accomplished nominee. I understand the partisanship, but I disagree with it. A Supreme Court nominee is there for all the country, not for one political party or the other, and most nominees will serve long after the Senators who voted for the nominee are gone. I do not think it is good for the country to make it this partisan. After the American people elected President Obama, leaders of the Republicans urged massive resistance from the outset. They have talked about wanting him to fail and have done everything they could to undermine his efforts to rescue our economy from the worst downturn since the Great Depression, to reform health care for all Americans, to lower taxes for Americans making less than $250,000 a year and to reform Wall Street so that we never again suffer the kind of greed and profiteering that put our economy at risk. When the Senator from Alabama became the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, he lamented the way nominees were treated. He said: What I found was that charges come flying in from right and left that are unsupported and false. It's very, very difficult for a nominee to push back. So I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticisms that we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts and that nominees should not be subjected to distortions of their record. I agree with that statement and very much regret the distortion of Dean Elena Kagan's record as dean of the Harvard Law School. No one should have attacked her unfairly for following the law while seeking to honor Harvard's nondiscrimination policy. No one should be misrepresenting her views and smearing her character or questioning her commitment to our men and women in uniform. Yet that is what has been happening repeatedly since her nomination. In fact, some of these same smears were considered last year in connection with her nomination to be Solicitor General. She received a bipartisan vote of approval then. I was hoping that would put it to rest. Instead, some continue to accuse her of an anti-military bias and violating the law. They say that she ``barred the U.S. military from coming on the Harvard Law School campus,'' that she ``kicked the military off Harvard's campus,'' that she ``disregard[ed] the law . . . in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war,'' that she was punishing and taking actions against our military men and women, that she condemned the U.S. military, that she acted in a way that was ``not lawful,'' and that she ``violated the law.'' That is incorrect. I would have thought, and certainly had hoped, that since the facts are known, these misstatements would not be repeated. Regrettably, this has not been the case. The unfair attacks that have been leveled at this nominee are all the more reason for her to have a chance to respond. Anyone who has a sense of fairness would not be raising questions and contending they still have concerns while at the same time seeking to delay her an opportunity to respond. Those who have been all too willing to attack this nominee during the last four weeks, and who purport to know her thoughts and her heart, should not be seeking to delay her opportunity to set the record straight and defend her character and good name. Those who unfairly characterize her as anti-military and, in effect, anti-American and unpatriotic, owe her the opportunity to respond. And she will this month when we have our hearings. Let's be clear on the facts. Dean Kagan did not ban the military from Harvard's campus. Harvard's students always had access to military recruiters. The facts are that military recruitment remained steady throughout Dean Kagan's tenure, it even increased during the brief time that the military was restricted from using Harvard's Office of Career Services, OCS. Unfortunately, these facts will not prevent some critics from claiming that she kicked military recruiters off campus when she did no such thing. This is not debatable. What is debatable is the wisdom of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. In my opinion, the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy forces good and capable people to choose between compromising their integrity and being barred from military service. At a time when we need a strong and skilled military more than ever, our existing policy makes the Armed Forces less effective. As Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said, ``allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.'' I agree. The current policy needlessly robs our Armed Services of the talents and commitment of countless people, and it should be changed. Every member of our military should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the mission, without regard to sexual orientation. Rejecting the discrimination that results from the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy is long overdue. Does this statement here on the floor of the Senate make me anti- military? Of course not. Does Admiral Mullen's position on the policy make him anti-military? Of course not. He is a distinguished four-star admiral. Did Dean Kagan's comments on the policy render her anti- military? Not on your life. Anyone at all familiar with her record knows better. Veterans from Harvard Law School have come to her defense. They know and recall her support of them and their service to the country. They know of the dinners and meetings she held with veterans. I am confident that a fair reading of her record will show she was supportive of our military, our veterans, and Harvard law students who wished to serve in the military. So let's stop the misstatements and the overheated rhetoric. Let's show her the respect she deserves. In her speech at West Point 3 years ago, Dean Kagan spoke of being in awe of the courage and the dedication of those who were preparing for the military. She went on to speak directly to the issue, saying: I have been grieved in recent years to find your world and mine, the U.S. military and U.S. law schools at odds, indeed, facing each other in court on one issue. That issue is the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. Law schools, including mine, believe that employment opportunities should extend to all their students, regardless of their race or sex or sexual orientation. And I personally believe that the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the military is both unjust and unwise. I wish devoutly that these Americans could join this noblest of all professions and serve their country in this most important of all ways. But I would regret very much if anyone thought that the disagreement between American law schools and the U.S. military extended beyond this single issue. It does not. And I would regret still more if that disagreement created any broader chasm between law schools and the military. It must not because of what we, like all Americans, owe to you. Hers were not the words of someone who is anti-military. There should be no place in America for discrimination. We ask our troops to protect freedom in places around the globe. It is time to protect the basic freedoms and equal rights at home. I commend the House of Representatives for passing legislation just last month to end this discriminatory policy, and the Senate Armed Services Committee for doing so, as well. Congress is moving forward to adopt the policy of nondiscrimination that Harvard Law School had adopted and that Dean Kagan supported. I have long supported similar legislation in the Senate. I believe this is an important issue worthy of an up-or-down vote by the Senate. Regrettably, like so many steps forward in legislation to protect equality throughout our history, the repeal of this discriminatory policy will likely be filibustered by a recalcitrant minority. I also find it ironic that those Republican Senators most critical of the nominee have filibustered and voted against funding for our troops and against services for our veterans. When the American people hear a Republican Senator criticizing Elena Kagan's respect and support for the military, they might ask whether that Senator filibustered the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. Led by the Republican leadership, more than 30 Republican Senators did. Even after their filibuster was defeated, most Republican Senators proceeded to vote against the bill and the authorities it provided our military. Likewise, when the Senate considered the consolidated appropriations bill to provide funding for veterans and military construction, again led by the Senate Republican leadership, more than 30 Republican Senators sought to filibuster and stall that funding. Even when their filibuster was broken, more than 30 Republican Senators voted against that bill to provide the necessary funding for services to our veterans. Also obscured by the blinders worn by her critics are the following facts: Harvard Law School adopted its nondiscrimination policy in 1979, long before Elena Kagan ever attended Harvard Law School as a student let alone before she became an acting professor and ultimately its Dean. Like almost every other law school in America, Harvard requires employers to sign a statement that they do not discriminate. Only after an employer confirms its nondiscrimination employment policy and hiring practice can the employer use the logistical assistance of the Harvard Law School's Office of Career Services. This office merely facilitates recruitment by scheduling interviews and distributing student resumes to employers. It does not provide physical space on campus for employers to conduct interviews. In fact, private law firms typically conduct interviews off campus. In 1994, Congress adopted the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This law prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in our military. Two years later, in 1996, Congress passed the so-called ``Solomon Amendment'' as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This statute allows Federal funds to be denied to universities that have ``a policy or practice'' that ``prohibits, or in effect prevents'' the military's access to students on campuses for purposes of military recruiting. In order to deny Federal funds under the Solomon amendment, the Secretary of Defense must determine that a university has such a policy or practice, ``transmit a notice [of such determination] . . . to Congress'' and ``publish in the Federal Register a notice of the determination and the effect of the determination on the eligibility of the [university] for contracts and grants.'' The Solomon amendment did not directly prohibit a law school from applying its nondiscrimination policy to military recruiters. It did not make such an action a crime. The Solomon amendment gave institutions a choice between satisfying the Secretary of Defense's requirements on military recruitment or risk foregoing certain Federal funds. Senator Sessions acknowledged this very point when he said last year, ``well, let me say, that amendment didn't order any university to admit anybody or to allow anybody to come on campus.'' In fact, it is not a criminal statute but an attempt to use the threat of a Federal funding cutoff as leverage. In 1998, the Air Force determined that Harvard's alternative arrangement for military recruitment facilitated by the HLS Veterans association, in lieu of OCS, complied with the Solomon amendment. In 2002, under the Bush administration, the Air Force reversed course and enter into a new and contradictory determination that the arrangement no longer satisfied the Solomon amendment. It threatened Dean Robert Clark, a Republican and Dean Kagan's predecessor, with a cutoff of millions of dollars. In response, Dean Clark ``regrettably'' allowed military recruiters to use OCS while continuing to emphasize his strong opposition to ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' In 2003, Solicitor General Kagan became the first woman to serve as dean of the Harvard Law School when she succeeded Dean Clark. For the first few years in this position she maintained the law school's nondiscrimination policy that all employers, with the sole exception of the military, had to follow to use the Office of Career Services. She continued to allow the military access to OCS, despite the fact that it could not sign a nondiscrimination statement. However, she also repeatedly voiced her opposition to the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, as Dean Clark had, calling it ``a moral injustice of the first order.'' Also in 2003, the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., FAIR, an association of law schools, began a lawsuit challenging the Solomon amendment and seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining its enforcement. On November 5, 2003, the district court denied the injunction and FAIR appealed to the court of appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 12, 2004, in her capacity as a law professor, Dean Kagan joined more than 50 other Harvard law professors to support an amicus brief backing FAIR's appeal to the Third Circuit. Unlike FAIR, which argued that the Solomon amendment violated the first amendment, the brief she joined made the more modest argument that the Department of Defense had misinterpreted the law. The amicus brief argued: (1) that the Solomon amendment did not apply to generally applicable nondiscrimination policies, like Harvard's, that did not specifically target the military; and (2) it only required that schools give military recruiters ``entry'' and ``access,'' not necessarily equal access. Noting the confusion surrounding the legal requirements of eligibility for Federal funding under the Solomon amendment, Congress amended the statute in October, 2004. The effect of those changes was not settled until the Supreme Court decided the case in 2006. On November 29, 2004, the Third Circuit concluded, 2-1, in an opinion joined by Reagan appointee Judge Walter Stapleton, that the ``Solomon Amendment violates the First Amendment by impeding the law schools' rights of expressive association and by compelling them to assist in the expressive act of recruiting.'' The Third Circuit's opinion did not address the Harvard law professors' amicus brief. From the beginning of her tenure until November 30, 2004, Dean Kagan had allowed the military to use OCS. Only after the Third Circuit concluded that the Solomon amendment was unconstitutional did Dean Kagan return to Harvard's prior policy of excluding the military from OCS. However, like her predecessors, Dean Kagan continued to allow military recruiters entry to the campus and facilitated interviews on campus through the HLS Veterans Association. This special arrangement was in place only for a few months in 2005. In May 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Third Circuit's decision. During that summer, while the government appeal was pending, the Pentagon informed Harvard University that its Federal funds were in jeopardy if it continued to restrict military recruiters from OCS services. The Pentagon never notified Congress nor published in the Federal Register that Harvard was not compliant with the Solomon amendment. On September 20, 2005, Dean Kagan reinstated the military's exception from Harvard's nondiscrimination policy and again granted it access to OCS. Dean Kagan's decision to lift the military's restriction from OCS was long before the Supreme Court held oral argument on December 6, 2005, or decided the case. The day after reinstating the military's use of OCS, Dean Kagan was one of 40 Harvard law professors to sign onto an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. As they did before the Third Circuit, the Harvard law professors argued that the Pentagon had misinterpreted the Solomon amendment and that properly read, the amendment ``rules out policies that target military recruiters for disfavored treatment, but it does not touch evenhanded anti-discrimination rules that incidentally affect the military.'' The Supreme Court rejected their argument. On March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court also reversed the Third Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment. Let's be clear. She did not break the law. She did not violate the law. She did her best to follow the law, even a law that led to discriminatory consequences with which she strongly disagreed. She engaged in legal action and participated in a legal challenge to the interpretation and application of the law by the Bush administration and reversed an earlier interpretation by the Air Force. Yet this legal action is what some now claim amounted to illegal conduct. That is incorrect. Recently there was an op-ed in the Washington Post by Walter Dellinger dated May 14, 2010, that discusses this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Finally, I find it ironic: Here is this very pro-military nominee who is being criticized as somehow being anti-military, being criticized by some of the same Republican Senators who have filibustered and voted against funding for our troops and against services for our veterans. I think most people see through that. Mr. President, we are required to vote at what time?

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I express my sincere congratulations and best wishes to Nina Thomas on her retirement as registrar at Vermont Law School. Since 1976, Nina has served that institution with dedication and a devotion to its students. As Ms. Thomas ends her many years of exceptional service to Vermont Law School and its students, I wish her the very best as she enters this new chapter of her life. I thank her for her service, and I know her commitment over the years has helped to make the school the special, unique place it is today. Nina Thomas is a native of Vermont, having attended grade school in the same building that is now part of the Vermont Law School campus in South Royalton, VT. In 1976 she returned to be part of a fledgling institution where her care, her counsel, and her wisdom have made a difference in the lives of many law students who have passed through her office. Her dedication helped the school grow into a successful institution for legal education that is a source of pride for Vermont and Vermonters. Her career spanned from the early days of the school's beginnings to the present, where it stands as a national leader in environmental legal thinking and learning. As Nina Thomas enters her retirement, I hope she will take great comfort in knowing that the mark she left at Vermont Law School will be a lasting one and that her contributions are part of the school's strong foundation. I know she will be dearly missed by faculty and staff and most especially the students to whom she has given so much.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to a man who has provided immeasurable leadership and dedication to the lives of young people and families around the State of Vermont, Tom Howard of East Montpelier. After 31 years as executive director, Tom will be retiring this month from the Washington County Youth Service Bureau/ Boys & Girls Club. Tom is a native Vermonter who, while growing up, lived in the Philippines, Panama, Germany, and throughout the United States. He served in the U.S. Army in Korea between 1963 and 1966, and earned a B.A. from Johnson State College in history and international relations in 1970. Tom went on to earn a master's degree in executive development in public service at Ball State University in 1974, and wrote his master's thesis on youthful offenders. Appointed as executive director of the bureau in 1979, Tom has built the agency into a diverse organization with statewide impact. Under his leadership, the organization developed cutting-edge programs, like the Return House in Barre, VT--a program operated by the Washington County Youth Service Bureau for 18- to 22-year-old young men who are returning to the community after being incarcerated. In addition to his commitment to working with young people and youthful offenders, Tom has secured millions of dollars in Federal, State, and foundation grants to bring sustainable services and opportunities to youth. We are fortunate in Vermont. I am always impressed by the high level of collaboration on behalf of Vermont's communities to solve its problems. Over the years, I have brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to Vermont several times for field hearings to explore community efforts to counter drug-related crime in rural America. On each occasion, I have looked to Tom for testimony about the work he and his organization have done with youthful offenders. Tom not only offers his knowledge of work going on around the State, but provides the expertise of his organization, and personal stories about the lives of the young people he works with. As a fellow photographer, I would be remiss if I failed to note that Tom's office documents a life full of adventure. His walls depict the bureau's accomplishments--such as when he was invited to represent Vermont's 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs at a White House Ceremony hosted by President Bill Clinton. They also capture the faces of those who inspire him, like the pupils for whom he served as a teacher and counselor at the Wittlich Prison in West Germany. I believe Tom embodies the core principles of what it takes to serve Vermont's youth, from his skill as an administrator, to his contribution as a caring person. I thank Tom for all that he does, and I commend his work to the Senate as an example to others. We are grateful for his service to Vermont's young people and families for the past 31 years. Marcelle and I wish Tom and his family all the best.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose the resolution. The resolution of disapproval before us reminds me of a skills competition for young people that has been promoted by the National Football League. It is called Punt, Pass, and Kick. The resolution is an engraved invitation for the Senate to make a big league handoff of a basketful of illness, economic stalemate, and environmental pollution to our children and grandchildren. It would punt away constructive action to begin addressing many threats that each and every American faces from climate change, and the threats we face every day to our national security. It would pass on opportunities to foster cleaner air and water for us and for the generations that will follow us. It would kick away the progress already negotiated by the Obama administration and key industries, such as automobile and truck manufacturers, to usher in new products that would pollute less while creating good American jobs-- jobs that cannot be sent overseas, jobs we need in America. Many on the other side of the aisle have been adamant in trying to wish these problems away and to forfeit the economic opportunities at our fingertips to lead the world in these new energy technologies. Powerful corporate interests are more than glad to contribute to these efforts to stalemate any progress. What we are debating today is whether business as usual is good enough for the environmental challenges and economic opportunities that are already before us. We are being asked to overturn with a political veto the strong scientific evidence that points to a healthier future. We are being asked to undermine America's ability to clean up our air and our waters. The science is clear that greenhouse gases are a danger, and they are a clear and present health and economic threat to the American people. At a time when our Nation is responding to our worst environmental catastrophe of all time and oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, passing this resolution would be the Senate's way of saying: Nothing has changed; nothing should change. I disagree. It is a declaration of our intent to keep relying on the outdated, dirty, and inefficient technologies of the past, and to let every other industrialized country create jobs in their countries, leap ahead of us in developing and selling these new technologies. I disagree with that. This is another proposed bailout of big polluters. I do not think this is the path we want to chart for our children and our Nation. A decade from now, will we be able to look back at this vote and not be ashamed of ourselves? EPA's findings are based on sound science and an exhaustive review of scientific research. Let's not the 100 of us cast a political vote to overturn that. Much of what the special interests and big oil and their lobbyists have been saying in favor of this resolution is steeped in politics and mistruths, not in science. What we have here is the Environmental Protection Agency focused on protecting the American people, whether it is arsenic in our drinking water, smog in the air, mercury in the fish we eat, or greenhouse gases. Overturning these findings would be like trying to overturn science. You don't do it. If we pass this resolution, it is not a case of hurting the economy. Quite the opposite. The resolution will hurt the economy by causing the American people to forfeit a third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are projected to come from last year's historic agreement. Do not overturn the EPA findings. Do not force our Nation's already struggling automakers to spend even more money to produce more fuel- efficient cars because a dozen States, such as Vermont and California, could then go forward, each with their own rules and standards. Let us not be known as the Congress to continue to punt, pass, and kick on these crucial issues about which the American people are looking for solutions.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 and glad to join the full Senate today in passing this important bill. This legislation will improve the safety of Americans traveling on cruise ships by increasing security and crime reporting regulations. Far too many incidents of sexual assault and other serious crimes continue to occur on board cruise ships despite ongoing media and Congressional attention to this problem. I have long worked to improve protections for crime victims through landmark legislation including the Victims of Crime Act and the Violence Against Women Act. I applaud Senator Kerry for his leadership in ensuring those protections extend to Americans traveling aboard cruise ships. This important legislation will require the cruise industry to comply with a number of commonsense security provisions, such as providing peep holes and locks in sleeping cabins, and it mandates cruise vessel personnel to contact both the FBI and the U.S. Coast Guard as soon as a serious crime is reported. I am particularly pleased to see that the legislation will improve the treatment and protections victims receive on board a cruise ship following a crime. For example, a licensed medical practitioner will be required on board all ships to provide immediate treatment, including medications to prevent sexually transmitted diseases after an assault and to conduct forensic examinations to help collect critical evidence for later prosecution. I have worked hard to ensure that these kinds of services to assist victims and to facilitate successful prosecution of those who commit terrible crimes are available throughout the country. I am glad that this bill will help ensure that Americans traveling at sea receive these same vital services. These important commonsense provisions will help prevent further crimes from happening by improving security measures on our country's cruise ships, while also improving our ability to hold the perpetrators of these serious crimes accountable. I am pleased to support this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act, ECEA, common sense legislation that will ensure that those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through environmental crime are held accountable. It has been 50 days since the collapse of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, which killed 11 men. Oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, and deadly contaminants are washing up on the shores and wetlands of Gulf Coast States. This catastrophe threatens the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the region, as well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible for this catastrophe must be held accountable; they, not the American taxpayers, should pay for the damage and the recovery. The bill I introduce today aims to deter environmental crime, protect and compensate its victims, and encourage accountability among corporate actors. First, ECEA will deter schemes by Big Oil and other corporations and industries that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often, corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws resulting in prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes. Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm such crimes can cause. As the current crisis makes clear, Clean Water Act offenses can have serious consequences on people's lives and livelihoods, which should be reflected in the sentences given to the criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent effect. This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act violations. Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act offenses would have to compensate the victims of these offense for their losses. That restitution will help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their livelihoods should criminal liability be found. Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be compensated for criminal wrongdoing. As we have seen in the BP case, arbitrary laws prevent those killed in tragedies like this one from bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for restitution to victims, providing some small measure of security for the families of those killed. This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These measures are tough, but fair. They are important steps toward deterring criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of Big Oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act, ECEA, common sense legislation that will ensure that those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through environmental crime are held accountable. It has been 50 days since the collapse of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, which killed 11 men. Oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, and deadly contaminants are washing up on the shores and wetlands of Gulf Coast States. This catastrophe threatens the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the region, as well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible for this catastrophe must be held accountable; they, not the American taxpayers, should pay for the damage and the recovery. The bill I introduce today aims to deter environmental crime, protect and compensate its victims, and encourage accountability among corporate actors. First, ECEA will deter schemes by Big Oil and other corporations and industries that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often, corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws resulting in prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes. Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm such crimes can cause. As the current crisis makes clear, Clean Water Act offenses can have serious consequences on people's lives and livelihoods, which should be reflected in the sentences given to the criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent effect. This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act violations. Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act offenses would have to compensate the victims of these offense for their losses. That restitution will help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their livelihoods should criminal liability be found. Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be compensated for criminal wrongdoing. As we have seen in the BP case, arbitrary laws prevent those killed in tragedies like this one from bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for restitution to victims, providing some small measure of security for the families of those killed. This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These measures are tough, but fair. They are important steps toward deterring criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of Big Oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating. As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim. Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal. The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states. In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job. Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms. Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic. In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong. Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies. As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating. As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim. Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal. The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states. In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job. Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms. Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic. In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong. Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies. As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.