Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week we began debate on Senator Dodd's Wall Street reform legislation. This is the culmination of a lengthy dialogue on how best to rein in Wall Street's excesses, and bring about a new era of corporate responsibility. I have pushed, and will continue to push, for reform that preserves the role of the antitrust laws as a tool to keep Wall Street honest and promote competition in the financial industry. The recent economic crisis showed all of us that corporations do not act responsibly without adequate oversight. As we work to pass this landmark legislation, it is important to remember that, today, there is another industry that is not required to even play by the same rules of competition as everyone else. Benefiting from a six-decade-old special interest exemption, the health insurance industry is not subject to the Nation's antitrust laws. We can surely agree that health insurers should not be allowed to collude to fix prices and allocate markets. Large corporate interests impact the daily lives of hardworking Americans and must be regulated. When any large corporation acts irresponsibly, whether it is a financial institution or a health insurance company, Americans pay the price. Today I filed the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act as an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill. This amendment, which is cosponsored by 21 other Senators, will repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption and ensure that they follow basic rules of fair competition. Competition ensures that consumers will pay lower prices and receive more choices. Congress and the President have recently enacted comprehensive health insurance reform. It was clear from that debate, and from the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this issue in October, that the time to repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption is now. The language I am offering today passed overwhelmingly in the House, and it is supported by the President. It has received a cross-section of support from groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and the American Antitrust Institute. This repeal will ensure that basic rules of fair competition apply to those reforms included in the new health insurance reform laws. Last fall, I introduced similar legislation to repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired examined the merits of this repeal. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and this amendment is an important step towards ensuring that health insurers are subject to the laws of fair competition. Today, I renew my call for the Senate to take up and pass this amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies. I hope all Senators will join me in support. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am honored once again to submit this resolution to the Senate commemorating our Nation's law enforcement officers and National Peace Officers Memorial Day. The Senate's official recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week is a tradition I am proud to carry out each year, and I look forward to the Senate taking up and passing this resolution. In 2009, 116 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. We honor their memory. Though this is a decrease from 2008, it is no less tragic a loss to our Federal and State law enforcement community and to their families and friends. Each year we commemorate the bravery of so many in law enforcement, and our Nation's peace officers deserve our commitment to provide them with the tools they need to stay safe and to do their jobs as effectively as they can. Currently, more than 900,000 men and women work tirelessly to protect our communities, our schools, and our children. They investigate and apprehend the most violent criminals and strive to keep our communities safe and secure. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, the names of 18,983 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. I also take this opportunity to recognize that the names of 324 fallen officers will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on May 13 during a candlelight vigil held in their honor. These are officers from the past and present whose memory will be preserved for all time at the memorial, ensuring that their bravery and sacrifice will not be forgotten. I especially want to recognize two brave Vermonters who gave their lives in the line of duty, and whose names will be added to the Memorial this year: John Henry Collette of the Addison County Sheriff's Office, died July 17, 1932, and Robert Daniel Rossier of the Vermont Highway Patrol, died September 9, 1935. National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by those members of our police forces. More than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington in the days leading up to May 15, to join with the families of their fallen comrades. It is right that the Senate show its respect on this occasion, and I am proud to honor their service and their memory. I urge all Senators to join me in approving this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senate for enacting the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, H.R. 3714, a bill to strengthen and protect press freedoms around the world. I am proud to cosponsor the Senate companion to this bill, S. 1739. I congratulate and commend my good friend, Senator Dodd, for his leadership on this bill and for his longstanding commitment to freedom of the press. I have worked closely with Senator Dodd for many years on legislation to establish a Federal shield law for journalists, and I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee recently reported Federal shield legislation. I also commend Representative Adam Schiff for championing this important legislation in the House of Representatives. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act will amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require the Secretary of State to include information about freedom of the press practices in other countries in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The bill will also require that this report identify countries in which there are violations of freedom of the press, such as physical attacks on journalists, imprisonment, and censorship by foreign governments. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that more journalists have been killed around the world in 2009 than in any other year since that organization first started tracking this data in 1981. This troubling report demonstrates that the press freedoms that we often take for granted at home are in danger of being snuffed out in many other parts of the world. I believe that this bill will help to reverse this trend and to signal to the world community that the United States is committed to ensuring freedom of the press at home and abroad. Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to fellow Founding Father John Adams that ``[t]he light which has been shed on mankind by the art of printing has eminently changed the condition of the world . . . And while printing is preserved, it can no more recede than the sun return on his course.'' Although these words were written almost two centuries ago, the critical role of a free and vibrant press is no less significant today. Again, I congratulate the lead sponsors of this important legislation for their commitment to freedom of the press. I urge the President to promptly sign this important legislation into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on May 4, the Saint Michael's College community will celebrate the 80th birthday of a fellow Michaelman and longtime friend of many, Reverend Raymond Doherty. Father Ray, as he is known to many, graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1951, and began what has become a lifetime of service to the Saint Michael's community. A devoted member of the Society of Saint Edmund, whose members founded Saint Michael's over 100 years ago, Father Ray embodies the deep commitment to social justice that has become the hallmark of a Saint Michael's College education. It is among the many reasons I am proud to join Saint Michael's alumni everywhere in celebrating this milestone. For the past seven decades, Father Ray has advised, counseled, and supported countless Saint Michael's students, faculty, alumni, and Vermonters. His contributions have not gone unnoticed. In 2005, a fellow classmate established the Reverend Raymond Doherty SSE '51 Scholarship to honor Father Ray's significant contributions as a college administrator, friend, and religious leader. Saint Michael's students continue to learn and grow from Father Ray's contributions to the Saint Michael's community. Countless students, and in many cases generations of families, are lucky to know him. As a student at Saint Michael's in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Father Ray graced the George ``Doc'' Jacobs baseball program as a starting and relief pitcher for the college. Later in his career, Father Ray would serve as a key member of the college's 1987 and 1996 athletic tasks forces. Last year, the Saint Michael's community honored that legacy by inducting him in to the Saint Michael's College Athletic Hall of Fame. Saint Michael's widely recognized reputation for encouraging its students and alumni to foster peace and justice has been bolstered by Father Ray's commitment to community service and helping those in need. His frequent involvement in Saint Michael's signature service organization, the Mobilization of Volunteer efforts, MOVE, has been an example to all. Two years ago, in 2008, Father Ray and the Edmundite community celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination. As Father Ray marks another milestone this year, I join with countless of fellow Michaelmen in wishing him the happiest of birthdays. We all look forward to his continued support of the Saint Michael's mission.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, ``Middlebury to Develop Online Language Venture,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I speak often about the excellent higher education opportunities that are available in Vermont. Today, I want to honor Middlebury College for a new business venture that builds upon its academic reputation in foreign languages. A small, liberal arts school of 2400 students, located in Addison County, Middlebury is a campus that is rooted in Vermont's rich culture, while charting the way forward to the future. From using wood chips to heat and cool buildings across the campus, to local food initiatives, to recycling building materials, students, faculty and staff use creativity and build on a tradition of excellence in helping to take the college to the next level. This week, Middlebury College was hailed as one of the Nation's top ``green colleges'' in a new ranking by the Princeton Review. And a recent article in the New York Times described the college's new and innovative business partnership to develop an online language program for precollege students. Already well known for its intensive summer language programs, Middlebury will be able to broaden its reach and impact by bringing a language program directly into the homes of American students wanting to learn new languages. The Internet has emerged as a significant learning tool, and connecting students with language instruction on the Web is a wonderful academic idea as well as an innovative business initiative. I know that Middlebury College will continue to be a leader in academic innovation, and I wish them the best in their new endeavor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today our Nation marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. For four decades, Americans have joined together on April 22 to celebrate our environment and to commit ourselves to fostering a healthier world. What Senator Gaylord Nelson began as a grassroots response to widespread environmental degradation in the 1970s has grown to become the foundation of the modern environmental movement and an annual recognition of Earth Day. For 40 years, Americans have used this day to organize events and participate in activities to draw attention to environmental issues and to promote environmental awareness and reform. Today, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we can be proud of the many steps we have taken to clean up the environment. With the hard work and dedication of many, we have made progress. But there is more work to be done and we are facing many new threats. Now for the first time since the passage of the landmark environmental laws of the 1970s, we are close to making significant strides to address environmental, climate, and energy-related issues. Bipartisan legislation is being developed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and significant steps have been taken already by this administration to ease the impact of human activities on the natural world, for our benefit, and for the benefit of generations to come. We do not have to choose between creating jobs and protecting the environment or between jobs and solving climate change. The economy of the 21st century will be built on infrastructure powered by clean energy, and, as Gaylord Nelson once wrote, ``all economic activity depends upon the . . . air, water, soil, forest, minerals, wetlands, rivers, lakes, oceans, wildlife habitat, and scenic beauty.'' These, he said, ``are the accumulated capital resources of a nation. Take them away and what you have left is a wasteland.'' Today, as the world pauses to consider the awe-inspiring power of our choices, let us reflect on what we stand to lose if we fail to act and what we stand to gain if we make the commitment to improve the air, water, and land upon which we depend. It is clear that Earth Day is not about the next government proclamation or regulation; this day is about the actions of individuals the amazing power of one person to accomplish change. The threats to our planet are global; they are broad and overwhelming. But they are also very personal. The choices we make today will shape our world for generations to come. Though it may seem improbable to suggest that each person has the power to make a change, in saving our planet and improving our communities, it is certainly true. It is estimated that by the year 2050, 40 years from now, the global population will be 9.4 billion people, adding more strain to our ecosystems. If personal responsibility for the Earth is truly as simple as conserving water, choosing public transportation or carpooling whenever possible, making your home more energy efficient, buying local sustainably produced food, recycling and reusing goods, there is little reason for any of us to deny our individual power to bring about change. It is all too easy to imagine that the problems people currently face are a world away--across an ocean, on other continents. It is too easy to imagine problems such as a lack of clean water, vicious storms, and insufficient food supplies as not our own. I know that when it comes to the future of the Earth, the continent that seems so removed could just as easily be my backyard. On this 40th Earth Day, I am proud to call Vermont, the Green Mountain State, my home, and Vermont has been a leader in helping to show the way forward in protecting the Earth. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, each of us can renew our commitment to our planet--our home. We can use our power as individuals to work together toward a cleaner environment and a healthier planet. As part of the legacy we leave for our children and our grandchildren, let them enjoy a society that is secure in its commitment to a healthy and environmentally sound future. On this 40th anniversary of Earth Day, while we remember the pioneering spirit of Gaylord Nelson, we must honor his legacy and continue turning his words into action.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, yesterday the Senate was forced to devote the entire day to so-called ``debate'' on two nominations that Republican objections had stalled for months. The good news is, the majority leader's filing of cloture motions to end the filibusters on these nominations succeeded. The votes took place. Each was confirmed with more than 70 votes, a bipartisan majority of the Senate. The debate amounted to statements by Senators in support of the nominations. Let me emphasize that. The only people who spoke, spoke in support of the nominations. During the entire day, not a single Republican Senator came to the floor to oppose the nominations, nor did a single Senator come to the floor to explain why there have been months of delay that left a key office of the Justice Department without a head for the last year. None came to explain why their objections left a longstanding vacancy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Instead, there was silence. There is no explanation for what continues to be a practice by Senate Republicans of secret holds and a Senate Republican leadership strategy of delay and obstruction of President Obama's nominations. That is wrong. Throughout the week, a number of Senators have come before the Senate to discuss this untenable situation. They have asked for consent to proceed to scores of nominations that are totally noncontroversial. Yet Republicans objected because, after all, these nominees had committed the horrible sin of being nominated by a Democratic President. It makes no sense. I am in my 36th year in the Senate. I have never seen anybody treat any President, Republican or Democratic, in this way. Pursuant to our Senate rules which were enacted after bipartisan efforts, those Republican Senators who are objecting have an obligation to come forward and justify those objections. I am going to be interested to see which Senators are objecting to proceeding on 18 judicial nominees. Eighteen nominees who were reported unanimously-- every Democrat, every Republican in support of them from the Judiciary Committee--and then they are held by these secret holds. I will be interested in knowing what basis there is for not proceeding on those 18 nominees. In fact, I would like to know why we can't proceed to the 11 Justice Department nominees who were reported without objection-- U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and Directors of important institutes and bureaus within the Justice Department. Most of these people are involved with critical law enforcement matters. These stalled nominations extend back into last year, even though they had unanimous support from the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. Even though most of them are in key law enforcement positions, they have been stopped, they have been held up, they have been stalled. This is wrong, and it should end. Today, the Senate has another opportunity to make progress by completing action on the long-stalled nomination of Judge Denny Chin of New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is the circuit of the distinguished Presiding Officer and of this Senator. The vacancy he has been nominated to fill, which has been delayed by some anonymous Republican objection, has been classified as a judicial emergency by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It is not unusual. There are 40 other judicial emergency vacancies and judges being held up. It is one of the four current vacancies in the Second Circuit's panel of 13 judges. All are judicial emergencies. Almost one-quarter of the court is being held vacant. That is wrong. It reminds me of the years during the Clinton administration when similar Republican practices led to Chief Judge Winter, himself a Republican, having to declare the entire circuit an emergency in order to continue to operate with panels containing only a single Second Circuit judge. That is wrong. During that era, we had 61 pocket filibusters of a Democratic President's judges. That is wrong. Yesterday, Republicans insisted on 3 hours of ``debate'' before a vote on Judge Vanaskie and another 3 hours of ``debate'' for a vote on Professor Schroeder, but none of them came down to debate. Then they were both confirmed by overwhelming margins. We should be thankful that today they have insisted on only 1 hour before this long overdue vote. I will be interested to see whether a single Republican Senator comes to speak in opposition of Judge Chin's nomination or to explain why they have delayed this vote for 19 weeks. The Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to report Judge Chin's nomination last December--all Republicans and all Democrats. None of the Republican Senators serving on the committee opposed it--not Senators Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, or Senator Coburn. Not one. He is an outstanding district court judge. He has the strong support of both of his State's Senators and a number of conservative leaders. Yet his nomination has been stuck on the calendar since December. He has been waiting 133 days for the Senate to act. Contrast this with the practice Democrats followed during the first 2 years of the Bush administration when we proceeded to vote on his circuit court nominations, on average, within 7 days of their being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Now we wait 133 days and more. This dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration on noncontroversial nominations has led to a backlog of nominations and a historically low rate of judicial confirmations, and it damages the integrity of our courts. Our Federal system of judges has been the envy of most other countries because we keep them out of politics. Here we are sinking them into politics. In fact, by this date in President Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, only 19 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed by the Republicans. This is despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominations to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush did, so the Senate is way behind the pace we set during the Bush administration. In the second half of 2001 and through 2002 the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given Republican delay and obstruction this Senate will not likely achieve half that. Last year the Senate was allowed to confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges all year. That was the lowest total in more than 50 years. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100. Judge Chin is a well-respected jurist who is widely celebrated for one of his most newsworthy decisions in which he sentenced Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff to 150 years in prison. He previously served for 4 years as a Federal prosecutor, and he spent a decade as a lawyer in private practice. You would think they would be saying: Why don't we move forward with the man who sentenced Bernie Madoff? It is almost as if we are punishing him for going after Bernie Madoff. In fact, Judge Chin's impressive track record garnered the respect of former judge and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who wrote to the Judiciary Committee: ``I believe him to be an intelligent and highly qualified nominee, who brings to the job not only experience but also demonstrated good judgment and skill. He . . . [has] a temperament that has shown him to be both firm and fair.'' James Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General and the former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, echoed this praise. ``In a district with many fine trial judges, he was a star--smart, fair, honest, careful, firm, apolitical, and a brilliant writer. . . . [W]hile always in control of the proceedings, he never lost the sense of humility that allowed him to listen to an argument with an ear toward being convinced and to give all a fair hearing,'' wrote Mr. Comey. Judge John S. Martin, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote to emphasize that Judge Chin ``is an exceptionally able lawyer'' and a ``decent and thoughtful individual . . . who has earned the respect of those who have appeared before him.'' When Judge Chin is confirmed today, he will become the only active Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court. He was also the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a U.S. district court judge outside the Ninth Circuit. I cannot understand the stall of this nomination. It is time that we get to work. Let's move the people who should be moved forward. Let's get on with our job. After all, the American public pays us well to do this job. They pay us to vote yes or no. They don't pay us to vote maybe. With all of these stalls, we are saying we want to vote maybe. Come on, let's have the guts to vote yes or no. Today I look forward to congratulating Judge Chin and his family on this historic achievement. I commend both Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their persistence in supporting this important nomination and bringing this matter to fruition. His confirmation is long overdue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to add me as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I just wish to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my dear friend, the senior Senator from Missouri.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 780, 781, 795, 796, 797, 798, 816, 817, 818, 819, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard, Foreign Service, and NOAA; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally confirm Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. I say ``finally'' because he was nominated by President Obama nearly 11 months ago. Professor Schroeder was first nominated to this position on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last June. He was reported favorably last July, a year ago, without dissent from both Republican and Democrat members on the committee. But then he sat on the Executive Calendar for 5 months, blocked by mysterious holds from the Republican side. Then, as the last session drew to a close, Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session, so it had to be sent back to the White House. The President had to renominate him. The President did that, to his credit. His nomination was reconsidered, reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee by a rollcall vote, with a majority of the Republicans voting for him. That was nearly three months ago. Professor Schroeder is a scholar and public servant who has served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department and has support across the political spectrum. The Judiciary Committee has received letters of support for Professor Schroeder's nomination from Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan; Ken Starr, former Solicitor General under former President George H.W. Bush; 11 former high-ranking officials at the Justice Department; and Dean David F. Levi of Duke Law School, where Professor Schroeder has taught for many years. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Chris Schroeder is well known to many of us in the Senate. He has served in a number of positions, including chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee when the chairman was then- Senator Joe Biden. He spent years in private practice and as a professor, including for the last 10 years as director for the Program in Public Law at Duke University Law School. He has also served in a number of high-ranking positions at the Justice Department making him extraordinarily well prepared for the position to which he has been nominated. In fact, in my nearly 36 years here, it is hard to think of somebody more well qualified. Look what he has done. He graduated from Princeton University, received his master of divinity from Yale Divinity School before earning his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley Boalt Hall in 1974. There is no question that he is well qualified to run the Office of Legal Policy. For somebody who is going to be confirmed easily, it shouldn't be necessary for the majority leader to have to file cloture in order to end the Republican filibuster. The Senate should be able to at least have an up-or-down vote on Professor Schroeder's nomination. What has this place come to when we have filibusters on routine nominations such as this? I remember, when I first came here, probably the biggest nomination we had before a heavily Democratic-controlled Senate was a nomination by a conservative Republican President, Gerald Ford, for the U.S. Supreme Court. President Ford nominated a well respected Republican from Chicago seen as a conservative; John Paul Stevens. We took that nomination from the Republican President 2\1/2\ weeks after that nomination arrived here. We all voted for John Paul Stevens to be confirmed for the Supreme Court, including myself. In fact, I am one of only three Senators still here who voted, with Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd being the other two. What have we come to when we have a nominee who is as extraordinarily well qualified as Professor Schroeder, who is going to be confirmed, but he has to get past a Republican filibuster. The 11 months it has taken us to consider this nomination is a far cry, incidentally, from the way the Democrats treated President Bush's nomination to run the Office of Legal Policy. A Democratic majority confirmed President Bush's first nominee to head that division, Viet Dinh, by a vote of 96 to 1 only 1 month after he was nominated and only 1 week after his nomination was reported by the committee. The 3 nominees of that office who succeeded Mr. Dinh--Daniel Bryant, Rachel Brand, and Elisabeth Cook--were each confirmed by a voice vote in a far shorter time than Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending. None of these nominations were returned to the President without explanation. None of them required cloture to be filed before being considered. What is going on when a Republican President is treated with fairness but a Democratic President, President Obama, is treated this way? It makes me think of what one of the leaders of the Republican Party said last year: I want this President to fail. If you have an objection to a nomination, vote against it, but none of us should want the President of the United States to fail because if the President fails, America fails and we all suffer, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have to get out of this mindset that if President Obama is for something, everybody has to find ways to block it. I agree with Senator Franken's observation on the Senate floor earlier this week concerning the Schroeder nomination. He remarked that perhaps Republicans were blocking this nomination because Professor Schroeder has been nominated to lead the office that vets potential judicial nominees. Well, he is right, as is Senator Kaufman, who has spoken so eloquently on behalf of Professor Schroeder today. To deflect criticism for Republican delays and obstruction of judicial nominations that have left 25 judicial nominations languishing on the Executive Calendar, Senate Republicans have tried to place the blame on the administration for sending too few nominees to the Senate. But these same Republicans have held up Professor Schroeder's nomination to lead the division of the Justice Department involved with reviewing and preparing judicial nominations for nearly a year. In other words, they stopped the person who is supposed to do the initial review on judicial nominations and then said: Oh, my goodness, President Obama is not sending up enough nominations. Come on. Come on. This is like a burglar saying: I should be excused for burglarizing this warehouse because you had such nice things in the warehouse to steal. It is your fault for having nice things to steal. How can you blame me for stealing them? What they are saying is: It is President Obama's fault for not moving through judges who have to be vetted by somebody we are blocking from vetting them. I know the Department and the administration would be grateful to have Professor Schroeder help them prepare judicial nominations. He has shown that he has a deep understanding of the proper role of a judge tasked with interpreting the Constitution. As he emphasized in a response to a question from Senator Sessions: Any interpretation of the Constitution must begin with the document's text, history, structure, and purpose, as well as judicial precedent . . . [A] fundamental qualification for anyone being considered for a judicial appointment is that he or she understand the Constitution has binding force that must be applied faithfully in cases that come before any court, independent of his or her own policy or preferences. So, again, I thank Senator Kaufman. He is one of the most valued members of the Judiciary Committee and somebody I am going to miss sorely when he retires this year. I thank him for his dogged efforts in support of Professor Schroeder's nomination and for his assistance in managing the debate so well today. I congratulate Professor Schroeder and his family on his confirmation. I have every confidence he will be an effective and devoted public servant. I might note--I see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, who is presiding over the Senate today. Among the 25 judicial nominees stalled before a final Senate vote, there were two courts of appeal nominees for North Carolina. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer took a totally nonpartisan attitude toward recommending these judges and has worked extraordinarily hard, and I hope Judge Wynn and Judge Diaz will soon be allowed by Senate Republicans to be considered and voted on. They are supported by both the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Hagan, and the other distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr. So they are supported by a Democrat and a Republican. Incidentally, Judge Wynn was reported out of the committee 18 to 1. Most of us would love to win elections by that kind of a margin. Judge Diaz was reported unanimously 3 months ago. So let's stop this unprecedented kind of stalling and clear these 25 judicial nominees. I see nobody else seeking recognition. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Christopher Schroeder, with the time until then equally divided and controlled as previously ordered; further, that any other provisions of the previous order with respect to the nomination remain in effect.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate just devoted almost 3 hours to the nomination of Thomas Vanaskie. Senate Republicans demanded this extended time for debate. I thank Senator Specter and Senator Casey for their statements. The Senators from Pennsylvania know Judge Vanaskie best, and strongly support him. I was glad to see Chairman Dodd, Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Kaufman come to use some of the time to talk about Wall Street reform. That is what we should be working on. Wall Street reform, patent reform, and other matters that are important to the American people are what we should be debating. I was glad to see that time not wasted in another extended quorum call because those who demanded this time to debate the nomination did not use it. I was glad to hear Senator Hagan talk about the two North Carolina nominees to the Fourth Circuit. They are among the 25 judicial nominees that Republicans have objected to considering even though they were voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously or nearly so. With respect to the President's judicial nominees, as I have said, we are well behind the pace I set as chairman when the Senate was considering President Bush's nominees during the second year of his presidency. By this date in President Bush's second year, the Senate with a Democratic majority, had moved ahead to confirm 45 of his Federal circuit and district court judges. So far during President Obama's Presidency, Senate Republicans have allowed votes on only 18 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. During the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency we moved forward to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. Republican obstruction of President Obama's nominations makes it unlikely that the Senate will reach 50 such confirmations. Last year they allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be confirmed, the lowest number in more than 50 years. Today, thanks to the perseverance of the majority leader and the Senators from Pennsylvania, we will consider and confirm only the 19th of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. I have already noted Judge Vanaskie's qualifications. There is no dispute that he is well qualified. Indeed, the only concern his opponents have raised is their fixation that no Federal judge be aware of foreign law. As Senator Specter has explained, the matter on which Judge Vanaskie is criticized was a case involving an international treaty. To those whose ideology clouds their judgment, I remind them that the Constitution of the United States, our Constitution, expressly provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States ``and Treaties.'' Treaties are international by their nature. How treaties are interpreted by other courts in other jurisdictions is relevant. In fact, Justice Scalia observed, when writing for the unanimous Court in Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 226 (1996): Because a treaty ratified by the United States is not only the law of the land, see U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2, but also an agreement among sovereign powers, we have traditionally considered as aids to its interpretation the negotiating and drafting history (travaux preparatoires) and postratification understanding of the contracting parties. I appreciate the significant steps taken by the majority leader to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Their refusal to promptly to consider nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominees. The majority leader was required to file five cloture motions to break through the logjam. I, again, urge the Senate Republican leadership to reverse its course and its obstructionist practices. Those practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of almost 100 nominations pending before the Senate awaiting final action. These are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's Presidency. I hope it will now, finally, be abandoned and we will be allowed to make progress after weeks and months of delay. The vote on the confirmation of Judge Vanaksie's nomination is the first vote on judicial nominations that the Senate will hold in 5 weeks. Despite the dozens of judicial nominations ready for Senate consideration, none has been allowed to move forward for over a month. These are nominations to fill longstanding vacancies in the Federal courts. Of the 25 pending judicial nominations, 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without any Republican Senator voting against. I have been urging the Senate Republican leadership for months to allow votes on these noncontroversial nominations and to enter into time agreements to debate the others. We need to clear the backlog of nominations and move forward. Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which have been designated ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, not only had the Senate confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges, but there were just seven judicial nominations on the calendar. All seven were confirmed within 9 days. By the end of this month, which is 9 days from now, we should clear the backlog that Republican obstruction has created and vote on the judicial nominations stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. By this date during President Bush's first term, circuit court nominations had waited less than a week, on average, before being voted on and confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee as long ago as five months, in November of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days after being reported before being allowed to be considered and confirmed. I congratulate Judge Vanaskie and his family on what I expect will be strong bipartisan vote in favor of his confirmation to serve on the Third Circuit. His confirmation is long overdue.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate just devoted more than 3 hours to the nomination of Chris Schroeder. I am glad that after many months the Senate has finally been allowed to act on that nomination and gratified that he received a bipartisan confirmation vote. After months of delay no Republican came to the Senate to speak in opposition to the nomination in the 3 hours that Republicans insisted be set aside to debate it. Senator Kaufman spoke in favor; I spoke in favor. Not a single opponent came to debate. That wasted more of the Senate's time when we should be considering other matters. We could be debating Wall Street reform, patent reform, or clearing the way for some of the other 100 Presidential nominations being stalled. We should have been. With respect to the President's judicial nominees, we are well behind the pace I set as chairman when the Senate was considering President Bush's nominees during the second year of his Presidency. By this date in President Bush's second year, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had moved ahead to confirm 45 of his Federal circuit and district court judges. So far during President Obama's Presidency, Senate Republicans have only allowed votes on 18 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. During the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency we moved forward to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. Republican obstruction of President Obama's nominations makes it unlikely that the Senate will reach 50 such confirmations. Last year they allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be confirmed, the lowest number in more than 50 years. Today, thanks to the perseverance of the majority leader and the Senators from Pennsylvania, we will consider and I hope confirm the 19th of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees, Judge Thomas Vanaskie. It has been more than 4 months since Judge Thomas Vanaskie's nomination to fill a judicial emergency on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support. His nomination has the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Specter and Senator Casey. He has more than 15 years of Federal judicial experience having served as a district court judge in Pennsylvania since 1994. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated him well qualified to serve as a circuit judge on third circuit. His nomination is not controversial. Yet, it has taken months to get consent from the other side for an up-or-down vote on Judge Vanaskie's nomination and that did not occur until the majority leader was forced to file cloture to end the stalling. Judge Vanaskie is one of the 25 judicial nominees still being stalled from final Senate consideration. I appreciate the significant steps taken by the majority leader to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Their refusal to promptly consider even the most noncontroversial nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominees. The majority leader's decision to file cloture was an unfortunate but necessary step, resulting from Senate Republicans' refusal month after month to join agreements to consider, debate and vote on this nomination. Those practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of almost 100 nominations pending before the Senate, awaiting final action. These are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's Presidency. The vote on the confirmation of Judge Vanaskie's nomination is the first vote on judicial nominations that the Senate will hold in 5 weeks. Despite the dozens of judicial nominations ready for Senate consideration, none has been allowed to move forward for over a month to fill longstanding vacancies in the Federal courts. Of the 25 pending judicial nominations, 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without any Republican Senator voting against. I have been urging the Senate Republican leadership for months to allow votes on these noncontroversial nominations and to enter into time agreements to debate the others. We need to clear the backlog of nominations and move forward. I am pleased that the Senate tomorrow will consider another judicial nomination, that of Judge Denny Chin to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously, but it has also been stalled from Senate consideration for more than 4 months. Senate Republicans should lift their secret holds and also allow votes on the remaining 23 judicial nominations currently pending final action by the Senate. If we are allowed to act on the judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we will more than double the number of judicial nominations confirmed by the Senate this Congress, and bring the number of confirmations in line with the number we confirmed at this point during President Bush's first two years in office. Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which have been designated ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, not only had the Senate confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges but there were just seven judicial nominations on the calendar. All seven were confirmed within 9 days. By the end of this month, which is nine days from now, we should clear the backlog that Republican obstruction has created and vote on the judicial nominations stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. By this date during President Bush's first term, circuit court nominations had waited less than a week, on average, before being voted on and confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago, in November of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days after being reported before being allowed to be considered and confirmed. Judge Vanaskie was born and raised in Shamokin, PA. He is one of seven children raised by two working parents. He graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in 1975 and cum laude from Dickinson School of Law in 1978, where he was an editor of the law review. After law school, he spent 2 years as a law clerk to the Honorable William J. Nealon, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining the Federal bench, Judge Vanaskie spent 14 years in private practice. In 1994, Judge Vanaskie was confirmed by voice vote to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He served as the Chief Judge of the Middle District from 1999 to 2006, and has sat by designation with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on several occasions. He has also served as cochair of the Third Circuit Library Resources Task Force and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association. He is presently the chair of the Third Circuit Judicial Council's Information Technology Committee. His work in the area of technology in the courtroom has won him widespread admiration and appreciation. I congratulate Judge Vanaskie and his family on what I expect will be strong bipartisan vote in favor of his confirmation to serve on the Third Circuit. It is long overdue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would say to my distinguished friend from Wisconsin, I was delighted to hear those words about Gaylord Nelson. I had the privilege of serving for a term with Senator Nelson. He was down-to-earth, respected by all in this body, and he had a commitment to the environment rarely ever matched. The Senator from Wisconsin has said it far more eloquently than I could. But I think how fortunate we are that we have this Senator from Wisconsin who has carried out that commitment to the environment, that commitment to the best ideals of our government. I know our dear, departed friend Gaylord Nelson would be so proud to have the Senator here representing Wisconsin.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a distinguished and giving Vermonter will be retiring after nearly 40 years of working on behalf of Vermont's prisoners and former prisoners. Rita Whalen McCaffrey is stepping down in May as the Executive Director of Dismas of Vermont, a residential program that helps former prisoners transition and reintegrate into society. Opened in Burlington in 1986, Dismas of Vermont has grown to provide supportive housing in three homes and three satellite apartments in the Burlington and Rutland communities, and has served more than a thousand men and women in the past 25 years. Rita has engaged hundreds of Vermonters from all walks of life through the years to actively participate in the Mission of Dismas: to reconcile former prisoners with society and society with former prisoners through participation in a supportive family-like community. The Dismas model Rita founded in Vermont is powered by volunteers who cook and share the evening meal, choose to live in the community with the residents, and participate as active board members. The act of mutual reconciliation happens because community members come into the home and become a part of the Dismas family. Rita's strong commitment to building and encouraging community support for former prisoners exemplifies the charitable spirit that has made Vermont one of the best places in the country to live. Her efforts have changed the direction of many lives and encouraged many to work towards reconciliation and respect. By steering former prisoners away from crime and toward a more constructive path, her work has also made the community a safer and better place to live. She leaves a legacy that is as inspiring as it is impressive, and her successor will have large shoes to fill. As she moves on from a career path that began in 1974, I congratulate Rita for her invaluable service and leadership and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of my fondest memories of my undergraduate days at St. Michael's college was getting to know both Dr. William Tortolano and his extremely accomplished wife Martha. I could tell many stories about the Tortolanos and the times they were also part of the Leahy family. I would rather let a story in the Burlington Free Press about his retirement after a 50-year career at St. Michael's speak for me, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, the Senate yesterday, by a vote of 84 to 10, invoked cloture to end a Republican filibuster of President Obama's nomination of Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary at Treasury. As I said before that vote, the majority leader has taken a significant step to address the nominations crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction. Regrettably, that obstruction made it necessary for the Senate majority leader to file five cloture petitions to bring an end to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to carry out its advice and consent responsibilities. The refusal by Republicans month after month to come to agreements to consider, debate, and vote on nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations. Their practices have led to delayed up-or-down votes for more than 100 nominations stalled from final Senate action. The American people should understand that these are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction and are mostly nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's entire Presidency. Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as last November. To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges, on its way to confirming 100 judicial nominations by the end of his first 2 years in office. I know, I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during much of that time, and worked hard to make sure that President Bush's nominees were not given the same unfair treatment given President Clinton's judicial nominees by Senate Republicans. Senate Democrats made real progress with respect to judicial vacancies. We did treat President Bush's judicial nominees more fairly than Republicans had treated President Clinton's and confirmed 100 during the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002. President Obama began sending us judicial nominations 2 months earlier than President Bush had and still only 18 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed. If Republicans would agree to allow the Senate to act on the additional 25 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we could be at a comparable figure to the pace we attained in 2001 and 2002. As it stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved during President Bush's first 2 years. Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations despite vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which are ``judicial emergencies,'' as caseloads and backlogs grow and vacancies are left open longer and longer. I understand and share the frustration of the Senator from Rhode Island who came before the Senate earlier today to speak about this obstruction. In the time he had, he asked the Senate to consider 5 of the 25 judicial nominees stalled on the calendar, and each time there was a Republican objection. He made the point that these judicial nominations have not only been waiting a long time, but they were approved unanimously or nearly unanimously by all Republican and Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Still, after weeks, and in some cases months, Republicans will not consent to their consideration. They were nominees who are supported by home State Senators, including Republican home State Senators. Still, Republicans will not enter into agreements for their consideration. I began urging the Republican leadership last December to allow the Senate to make progress on these nominations by agreeing to immediate votes on those judicial nominees that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent, and to agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others. Presently, there are 18 judicial nominations being stalled from Senate consideration by Republican objection even though when they were considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee no Republican Senators on the committee voted against a single one. This is the Republican strategy of delay and obstruction-- delay and obstruct even those nominees they support. They delayed confirmation of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the eleventh circuit until this year. They delayed confirmation of Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the third circuit. They delayed and filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit, who was then unanimously approved. I further call upon Republicans to agree to time agreements on each of the other seven judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. Only one Republican Senator in the Judiciary Committee voted against Judge Wynn of North Carolina; only three voted against Judge Vanaskie of Pennsylvania; only four voted against Ms. Stranch of Tennessee, who is supported by the senior Senator from Tennessee, a Republican and a member of the Senate Republican leadership. Senate Republicans should identify the time they require to debate the nominations of Justice Butler of Wisconsin, Judge Chen of California, Judge Pearson of Ohio, and Judge Martinez of Colorado, who are all well-qualified nominees for district court vacancies, which are typically considered and confirmed without lengthy debate. They should not now be held up because they were targeted unfairly in committee by Republicans applying a new standard for district court nominees never used with President Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress--not the 100 we confirmed in 2001 and 2002. Last year, only 12 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. That was the lowest total in more than 50 years. So far this year, only six more have been considered. The majority leader was required to file cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit. Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the time-consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to 0. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier or without having to end their filibuster on that nominee either. Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the third circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the second circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records, and both were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year with bipartisan support. Judge Chin, who was the first Asian-Pacific American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the ninth circuit, and if confirmed would be the only active Asian-Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by the committee unanimously. This obstruction and delay is part of a partisan pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate go exceedingly slow. The practice is continuing. The majority leader has had to file cloture 22 times already to end the obstruction of President Obama's nominees. That does not count the many other nominees who were delayed or are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. That is the frustration I share with Senator Whitehouse and many others. If Republicans wish to oppose a nomination they can, but they are stalling noncontroversial nominations that they support. The Senate should be better than this. These Republican practices are destructive. When we see that Americans are frustrated with Congress, it is these kinds of practices that contribute to that frustration. I urge the Senate Republican leadership to change its ways. Agree to prompt consideration of noncontroversial nominees and enter into time agreements to debate and vote on those nominees that they oppose. Quit wasting the time of the Senate. The American people want us to act on Wall Street reform, not be bogged down in delaying tactics for the sake of delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?