Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am going to actually speak on a different matter. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be moved to morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate finally confirmed the nomination of Marisa Demeo for a 15-year term as a judge for the District of Columbia Superior Court. Her nomination was the longest pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, having been stalled since it was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last May--nearly a year ago--by voice vote. There was no reason for this nomination to have been delayed so long. Indeed, once the majority leader pressed the matter by filing for cloture, Republicans agreed to 6 hours of debate and then used only a small portion of that. The bipartisan vote in favor of Judge Demeo is hardly unexpected, just delayed a year. Judge Demeo has served for 3 years as a magistrate judge on the court to which she has been confirmed. She is only the second Hispanic woman to hold that position. Judge Demeo is an experienced former prosecutor and Justice Department veteran with a sterling professional record. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several times to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in Washington, DC, and in support of Judge Demeo's nomination. Judge Demeo should have been confirmed long ago. This sort of obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not usually controversial. Those Senators who opposed this nomination and voted against it will have to explain their vote. Some tried. I do not think references to ``lifestyle'' have a place in this debate. I was also struck by those who selectively cited her advocacy for various causes when she was previously employed as an advocate as somehow rendering her unfit for judicial service. These same Senators were willing to give President Bush's nominees the benefit of the doubt, but apparently not those of President Obama. Their mantra when there was a Republican President nominating Republican activists was that they would be able to put aside those views or that they were merely doing their job or representing a client. Apparently that leeway only applies to Republican nominees. I commend those Republican Senators who bucked their party to vote in favor of this fine young woman and well-qualified nominee. I strongly supported the confirmation of Judge Demeo and regret that it has taken nearly a year for her nomination to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate. I congratulate her on her confirmation to the Superior Court and have every confidence she will be a fair and thoughtful judge.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is Justice John Paul Stevens' birthday, and I cannot help but think about that and some wonderful conversations I have had with him of late. As I said, his retirement from the Supreme Court will begin to draw to a close an extraordinary judicial career spanning four decades, including 35 years on the Nation's highest Court. It is interesting, Justice Stevens and I both came to Washington in the wake of the Watergate scandal in 1975. President Ford was impressed by Justice Stevens' anticorruption record, including his investigation of two Illinois Supreme Court Justices who were charged with accepting bribes. His confirmation to the Supreme Court was the first of a dozen Supreme Court nominations I have considered and voted on in my years in the Senate. As a young freshman Senator, it was my privilege to support his confirmation in 1975. Incidentally, he was nominated by a Republican President and considered by an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate. From the time he was nominated until the time he was confirmed unanimously, it was 2\1/2\ weeks. Justice Stevens is the only sitting Justice with Active military service during wartime. He is the last Justice from the ``Greatest Generation.'' He has never turned away when the Nation sought his service. He worked as a Navy intelligence officer during World War II, and that earned him a Bronze Star. Justice Stevens' unique and enduring perspective is irreplaceable; his stalwart adherence to the rule of law is unparalleled. The Federal judiciary and indeed the entire Nation will miss his principled jurisprudence. Today, as he marks another milestone with the celebration of his 90th birthday, and as we continue to honor his legacy, I want to mention just a few of his most notable opinions. During my 35 years in the Senate, I have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court in only a few cases. The most recent case was very important to me. It involved a Vermont musician named Diana Levine. Ms. Levine was forced--remember, she is a musician--she was forced to endure the amputation of her arm after she was injected with a drug to treat nausea. The drug maker failed to include critical information on its warning label that could have saved Ms. Levine's arm, and she ultimately sued the drug maker for this failure. A Vermont jury awarded Ms. Levine damages for the injuries that forever altered her life and career. Justice Stevens wrote the Court's opinion in that important case. He concluded that Food and Drug Administration approval of a drug for sale does not prevent that corporation from being held accountable under State consumer protection laws. In Ms. Levine's case, a Vermont jury heard all the facts and determined that the corporation had improperly labeled its product and failed to warn about the risks of injecting the drug. Justice Stevens' opinion in the Levine case ensured that millions of Americans who rely on pharmaceuticals will be protected by their own state laws, and will not be denied access to justice if they are injured. Although most Americans never expect that they will need to go to court, the right to do so is enshrined in our Constitution. Justice Stevens wrote a similarly compelling decision for the Court in a case called Tennessee v. Lane. Justice Stevens has written important opinions in cases in which the Supreme Court has upheld the power of Congress to pass legislation that protects the Americans we represent. He has brought to his opinions a keen understanding of the distinct roles set forth in our Constitution for courts and for the democratically elected Congress. He has maintained a fervent respect for both. In Gonzales v. Raich and in Tennessee v. Lane, Justice Stevens authored the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the actions of Congress to protect Americans. I suspect these precedents will be even more important as the Supreme Court continues to examine laws passed by Congress to protect Americans from discriminatory health insurance policies and fraudulent Wall Street practices. Justice Stevens has also written important decisions that involve the enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress. He authored a powerful opinion for the Court in one of the most important environmental protection decisions in recent memory. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency had to live up to its name and mission in implementing the Clean Air Act, despite the Bush administration's refusal to do so. Justice Stevens wrote: ``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.'' The Court rejected the Bush administration's rationale for refusing to enforce the law. The Nation will be better served for that decision. Some of the most important cases decided by this Supreme Court in the last decade have involved the limits of Presidential power in time of war, and Justice Stevens has left his mark on many of them. His experience serving this country in wartime no doubt contributed to his understanding. I said earlier that he is the only member of the Supreme Court who has served his country in wartime in the military. In Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that our Federal courts have jurisdiction over detainees held by the Government, even though they are not citizens of the United States. A few years later, Justice Stevens wrote for the court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and concluded that our Government has to follow our laws, including the Geneva Conventions, in trying prisoners detained at Guantnamo Bay. At their core, these decisions upheld the notion that the rule of law applies even in a time of war--something the Founders of this country believed. As the most senior Justice on the Court, Justice Stevens has the authority to write the opinion of the Court when the Chief Justice is in dissent. In two of the most important civil rights cases of the decade, Grutter v. Bollinger and Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Stevens extended the privilege of the writing the majority opinion to other Justices. In Grutter, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice Stevens joined that opinion, which recognized a compelling educational interest in racial diversity. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that consensual sexual conduct was protected by the Constitution from government intrusion. The majority opinion, in which Justice Stevens joined, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The impact of these two rulings on hardworking Americans was immediate; I hope they will endure. A decade ago, the Supreme Court unnecessarily waded into the political thicket to determine the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. In a scathing dissent, Justice Stevens lamented that the decision would damage the Court's reputation as impartial. Of course, he was right, and it did damage the Court's reputation. He had noted, and I quote: Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. He was right to speak so critically of what was a blatant political decision. While the public's memory of that politically charged decision finally began to recede, the Supreme Court again opened the floodgates, issuing its latest election-related decision in the Citizens United case. In Citizens United, five Justices with the stroke of a pen overturned a century of law to permit corporations to overwhelm and distort the democratic process. Those five justices substituted their own preferences for that of Congress, which had built on decades of legal development to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation after an open and extensive debate. In order to reach its divisive decision granting corporations, banks, and insurance companies rights that were once reserved for individual Americans, the Court overstepped the proper judicial role, and rejected not just the conclusions of the elected branches, but also its own recent precedent upholding the very same law it now overturned. In what may be his most powerful dissent, Justice Stevens noted that the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.'' I agree with Justice Stevens in both of these dissents. I join him in his concern for the Court's reputation. Two of the three branches of government are involved in campaigns and elections. When the American people see the courts reaching out to influence those elections, they rightly get suspicious of its impartiality. While I supported his confirmation, as I said before, as a very junior, very new Senator, I have not always agreed with Justice Stevens. But my admiration for his service is not based merely on the results of the cases that came before him, nor solely on his judgment or his forthrightness, but, rather, also on the manner in which he approached the law and his vigilant concern for public confidence in our courts. If we lose that public confidence in our Court, we lose one of the greatest mainstays of our democracy. If a society does not have confidence in the integrity and the independence of their courts, there is no way they can maintain a democracy, there is no way they can maintain a check and balance. I have always respected the way in which Justice Stevens has conducted himself as a Justice and the way he has explained his conclusions. He and I share a view of government transparency that is a vital element of our democracy. No one can question Justice Stevens' integrity, nor his dedication to public service. Today, I join a grateful nation in wishing Justice John Paul Stevens a very happy 90th birthday. We are indebted to him for his service. I hope the next nomination to the Supreme Court will honor his extraordinary legacy. The choice of a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important and enduring decisions any President can make. A year before he died, President Gerald Ford wrote this about Justice Stevens: ``I am prepared to allow history's judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination 30 years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' What a tribute. No doubt every President would want to be able to say that about the quality of his Court selections. The law is not a game to be played or a puzzle to be solved. The law is intended to serve the people--protecting the freedom of individuals from the tyranny of government or the mob, and helping to organize our society for the good of all. No Justice should substitute his or her personal preferences and overrule congressional efforts to protect hardworking Americans pursuant to our constitutional role. I am looking forward to meeting with President Obama tomorrow to discuss his selection of a nominee to succeed Justice Stevens. Then, and in any private discussions, I will suggest that he pick someone who approaches every case with an open mind and a commitment to fairness. Someone who will heed the Vermont marble inscribed above the entrance of the Supreme Court which pledges ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Someone like Justice John Paul Stevens.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is Equal Pay Day: After 16 months of work, professional women today will finally have earned what their male counterparts earned in just 12 months of work last year. It is shameful that gender discrimination still exists in our country, and I hope today will serve as an important reminder that we must redouble our efforts to fully close the wage gap. Forty-six years have passed since the Equal Pay Act was enacted, yet the disparity between women's and men's salaries stubbornly remains. Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Unfortunately, a narrow ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 meant that those who are subject to pay discrimination have no claim to remedies unless a suit is filed no more than 180 days after the pay discrimination first takes place, even if they were unaware of the discriminatory pay. This ruling eroded longstanding interpretation of discrimination laws and created a new obstacle for victims of pay discrimination to receive justice. Last year, the new Congress achieved what could not be done before: We enacted the ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act'', which I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Mikulski, Kennedy and others. This bill restored victim's ability to file suit for pay discrimination and became the first bill President Obama signed into law. Lilly Ledbetter, the courageous woman who was the subject of decades of pay discrimination, continues to fight to ensure other women do not experience the same wage disparity she did for so many years. Lilly visited Vermont last fall as the keynote speaker at the Women's Economic Conference I host every year. Vermonters who attended that conference have written me and stopped me in the street to tell me how much her story meant to them. I hope Lilly continues to speak to inspire thousands more women to pursue pay equity. The ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act'' was an important first step in supporting equal pay for equal work, but our efforts must not stop there. Today, women are still paid just 77 cents on average for every dollar a man makes. Over the course of a womans career, the pay gap will mean between $400,000 and $2 million in lost wages. Eight years ago Vermont acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits paying female or male workers differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. As a result, Vermont leads the country in having one of the narrowest wage gaps between women and men. Today, in celebration of Equal Pay Day, Vermont's Business & Professional Women and the Vermont Commission on Women will join their member organizations at the Vermont State House for a proclamation signing and discussion of important issues relative to women. Two bills awaiting action in the Senate include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The ``Paycheck Fairness Act'', originally introduced by Senator Clinton, of which I am an original cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, strengthens penalties for equal pay violations, and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House with bipartisan support more than a year ago and deserves action in the Senate. The ``Fair Pay Act'', introduced by Senator Harkin--another bill that I cosponsor--requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions and requires employers to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue but an issue of inherent fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background and is not limited to one career path or level of education. We should pass the ``Paycheck Fairness Act'' and the ``Fair Pay Act'' and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters are not subject to the same discrimination that has burdened American women for decades.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Since 1981, people across the Nation have observed this week with candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our commitment to crime victims and their families. It is vitally important that we recognize the needs of crime victims and their family members, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago when I served as State's attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and witnessed first-hand how crime can devastate victims' lives. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents additional ordeals for those already victimized. I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. This critical piece of legislation provides grants for direct services to victims, such as State crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are entirely funded from a reserve fund created from criminal fines and penalties, and are provided without a single dime of funding from Federal taxpayers. I have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. Several years ago, we made sure the fund had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the Crime Victims Fund would run out of money, leaving them stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the fund in a given year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. These resources are appropriately set aside to assist victims of crime and their families. We have had to work hard to protect the Crime Victims Fund, and I have consistently supported raising the spending cap to allow more money out of the fund and into the field. As we observe Crime Victims' Rights Week, I would like to highlight a program in Vermont that has developed a unique and innovative approach to supporting victims of crime. In 2006, I was pleased to help the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services secure funding to design and implement the Burlington Parallel Justice Project. This program addresses the limitations of traditional criminal justice and restorative justice models, and represents a collaborative approach to repair the harm caused by crime. Under this program representatives from different sectors of the community, from government to law enforcement to service providers to local business, come together to address the needs of crime victims in a comprehensive manner. The concept of parallel justice was developed by Susan Herman, a former executive director of the National Center for Crime Victims, who emphasized the importance of having a victim-driven path through the criminal justice system. With the help of Susan and the National Center for Crime Victims, the Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services, the Burlington Community Justice Center and the Burlington Police Department implemented her vision in their community by forming a Parallel Justice Commission. The commission responds to the needs of victims by working with local service providers and others to address those needs, whether it is emotional support, medical cost assistance, or property repair. By hearing from victims about their experiences with the criminal justice system, they also bring about systemic change where needed. The result is a comprehensive approach to victim assistance that enhances the relationships between different parts of the community and builds safer and stronger neighborhoods. The Burlington Parallel Justice Project is a national demonstration project for parallel justice and has been able to thrive and expand due to funding from VOCA assistance grants. Last month, Burlington police chief Michael Schirling, a member of the Parallel Justice Commission, testified before the Senate Judiciary committee about innovative crime reduction strategies. He spoke about the success of the parallel justice program as an example of a community policing model and emphasized that developing innovative and effective strategies will be increasingly crucial to effective public safety. I could not agree more. I have often advocated for Federal support of meaningful, community-based solutions to crime and other issues we face in Vermont and across the Nation. Both Congress and the States have become more sensitive to the rights of crime victims since I was a prosecutor. We have greatly improved our crime victims' assistance programs and made advances in recognizing crime victims' rights. But we still have more to do. As we observe National Crime Victims' Rights week this year, we must renew our national commitment to help crime victims by supporting programs like the Parallel Justice Project, and protecting the Crime Victims Fund. I want to commend and thank Judy Rex, Karen Tronsgard-Scott, and the many other victims' advocates and service providers in Vermont and across the country who show their dedication every day of the year to crime victims. I am thankful for their advice and insights over the years, and I look forward to continuing our work to address the needs of victims everywhere.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the majority leader has taken a significant step to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of President Obama's highly qualified nominations and the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Regrettably, Republican obstruction has made it necessary for the majority leader to file cloture to bring an end to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to consider at least some of the long-stalled nominations languishing on the Senate's Executive Calendar. In a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations, Senate Republicans have refused for month after month to join agreements to consider, debate and vote on nominations. Their practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of over 80 nominations now stalled before the Senate, awaiting final action. The American people should understand that 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. 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. Those 25 judicial nominations are more than the 18 Federal circuit and district court nominees that Republicans have allowed the Senate to consider and act upon during President Obama's administration. 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. President Obama began sending the Senate judicial nominations 2 months earlier than President Bush did, and still only 18 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed. If we had acted on the additional 25 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we would have made comparable progress. As it stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved by this time in President Bush's first term. 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.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges; there were just 7 judicial nominations on the calendar, and all 7 were confirmed within 12 days. That was normal order for the Democratic Senate majority considering President Bush's nominations. Circuit court nominations by this date in his first term waited an average of less than a week to be confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported back in November and December of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days reported to be considered and confirmed after being favorably--more than 4 months compared to less than 1 week for President Bush's nominees--and those delays are increasing. In the 17 months in 2001 and 2002 that I chaired the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations. In stark contrast, to date, the Senate has only been allowed to act on 18 circuit and district court nominations. Twenty-two of the 25 nominations pending on the calendar have been pending for more than a month. Eighteen were reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent--without a single negative vote from any Republican member. Still they wait. Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress. Last year, only 12 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. The lowest total in more than 50 years. We have to do far more to address this growing crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies. It has been almost 5 months since I began publicly urging the Senate Republican leadership to abandon its strategy of obstruction and delay of the President's judicial nominees. But we have not considered a judicial nomination since March 17, when we finally confirmed the nomination of Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island to the First Circuit. Even though Judge Thompson had two decades of experience on her State's courts, and her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote, it stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar for nearly 2 months before she was unanimously confirmed, 98-0. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier. Before that vote, 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 zero. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier or for the filibuster of 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 who, if confirmed, would be the only active Asian-Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by the committee unanimously. The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the extended Republican effort to prevent Senate consideration of the nomination of Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. Professor Schroeder was first nominated by President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months, with not a single explanation of the delay. Then, as the year drew to a close, Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session, and it was returned to the President without action, forcing the process to begin all over again. President Obama renominated Professor Schroeder early this year, and his nomination was reconsidered and rereported by the Judiciary Committee with Republican support. A scholar and public servant who has served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across the political spectrum. Democrats treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President Obama's nominee, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96 to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast, Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June and will require cloture to be invoked before the Senate can finally have an up-or-down vote. The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the obstruction of the longest-pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, that of Marisa Demeo to the District of Columbia Superior Court. Her nomination has been blocked since it was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May 2009. This sort of obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not usually controversial. The nomination of Magistrate Judge Demeo, an experienced former prosecutor and Justice Department veteran who is the second Hispanic woman nominated to this court, is one I strongly support. I know Judge Demeo and have known her for years. The chief judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several times to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital. As usual, the cost of Republican obstruction is borne by the American people. Not long after President Obama was sworn in, Senate Republicans signaled their strategy of obstruction, threatening to filibuster his nominations before he had made a single one, in their letter of March 2, 2009. The stated basis for their threat was to ensure consultation with home State Senators. President Obama has consulted with home state Senators of both parties, yet Senate Republicans filibustered the very first of President Obama's judicial nominations, the nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite such consultation. The Senate had to invoke cloture to consider Judge Hamilton's nomination, even though he was a well-respected district court judge supported of Senator Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, with whom President Obama consulted before making the nomination. Senate Republicans have ratcheted up their bad practices from the 1990s when they pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, creating a vacancies crisis on the Federal bench. Democrats did not do the same to President Bush's nominees. I followed through on my commitment to treat them more fairly. I worked hard in 2001 and 2002, even after the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, holding hearings, including during Senate recess periods, in order to swiftly consider President Bush's nominees. That is why the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees by the end of 2002. Democrats only refused to rubber stamp a handful of the most extreme, ideological and divisive of President Bush's nominees. During the Bush Presidency Senate Republicans contended that filibusters of judicial nominations were ``unconstitutional.'' Now that President Obama is in the White House, Senate Republicans have filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton, and Judge Barbara Keenan, who was then confirmed unanimously. The same Republican Senators who recently threatened to blow up the Senate unless every nominee received an up-or-down vote are now engaged in another attempt to abuse the rules of the Senate and undermine the democratic process. Republican Senators who just a few years ago insisted that ``elections have consequences'' have now made the use of filibusters, holds, and excessive procedural delays the new normal in the Senate. They seem intent on continuing their destructive practices. It is regrettable that the majority leader has to file cloture on these mainstream nominations today, just to allow the Senate to hold the up-or-down votes that Republican Senators once demanded for the most extreme and ideological nominees of a Republican President. I thank him for doing so, and look forward to the confirmation of these nominees. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week, the country took another important step toward a more just and perfect union when President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies. I applaud the President for this effort to ensure that every person enjoys the same right to have their loved ones with them in hospitals and to designate surrogate decision makers when they are hospitalized, often in their time of greatest need. No one should be forced to face important medical decisions or spend their last moments apart from their loved ones just because the person they love happens to be of the same sex. The President has directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations prohibiting hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid from denying visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The memorandum issued last week also calls for greater enforcement of existing regulations that ensure all patients' legal representatives have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients' care. There is a tragic history of discrimination in health care, but fortunately, we are making progress to end it. Hospitals were racially segregated until the 1960s, when Congress passed legislation prohibiting that discrimination in hospitals that are recipients of Federal funding. The President's memorandum is a similarly important step toward equal treatment. For too long, some hospital patients have been denied the basic rights of receiving visitors and designating surrogate decision makers without a remedy in Federal law. In Vermont, many same-sex couples have sought to be recognized as committed couples by law to ensure that they and their families are entitled to these rights. Those families should not lose those rights when traveling out of State. 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 hospital patients to have their loved ones near in times of crisis is something every American should support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a matter of urgent importance for the people of Guatemala and for U.S. relations with Guatemala. Later this month, President Colom will select Guatemala's next Attorney General from a slate of six candidates. This may be among the most important decisions he makes this year, at a time when drug trafficking and other organized crimes, assassinations of human rights defenders, and other social and political activists, corruption, and impunity threaten the foundation of Guatemala's fragile democracy. In the 3 three months of this year alone, at least five Guatemalan human rights defenders, social activists, and trade unionists have been murdered, including two members of the Resistance Front for the Defense of Natural Resources--its president, Evelinda Ramirez Reyes, and Octavio Roblero. Also killed were Juan Antonio Chea, a Mayan indigenous lawyer who worked with the Human Rights Office of the Archbishop and the National Reparations Program; Pedro Antonio Garcia of the Malacatan Municipal Workers Union; and German Antonio Curup, a member of a group opposed to the construction of a cement plant in San Juan Sacatepequez. Mr. Curup was murdered in particularly brutal fashion--abducted on February 11, his body was dumped 2 days later, throat cut and showing signs of torture. This type of brutality is not unusual in Guatemala, nor is it unusual that no one has been arrested or punished for those crimes. The 1996 Peace Accords were a historic milestone, ending three decades of civil war when government security forces and associated death squads and civil patrols targeted anyone who was considered subversive. Tens of thousands of rural Mayan villagers, students, lawyers, journalists, and other social and political activists were arbitrarily arrested, tortured, and killed. The URNG rebels were also guilty of atrocities. Almost no one has been punished for those crimes. While the Peace Accords spelled out commitments by the government and goals for the country's future political, economic, and social development, progress has been disappointing. Implementation of many elements of the accords has been repeatedly delayed, and widespread debilitating poverty, impunity, and women's and indigenous peoples' rights remain urgent concerns. These are among the key issues the Peace Accords were designed to address, which were at the root of the conflict. In the meantime, in the absence of a credible or effective justice system, corruption has flourished and violent crime has skyrocketed. There has also been a steady emigration of poor Guatemalans seeking jobs in the United States. Effectively confronting these problems requires political will, which has too often been lacking in Guatemala. Secretary Clinton expressed the willingness of the United States to stand with the Guatemalan people during her visit there on March 5, and I hope the Guatemalan Government will seize this opportunity to develop ambitious and effective strategies to confront these challenges. There is no better place to start than by appointing an Attorney General who has 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. Investigating and prosecuting assassinations of human rights defenders, as well as some of the most notorious political crimes, should be a priority. The United States is helping through our donations to the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG. The CICIG is doing an important job and should continue, but it is no substitute for an effective Ministry of Justice. We are ready and willing to support an Attorney General who demonstrates the necessary professional qualifications and commitment. But absent those qualifications and commitment, as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I would find it difficult to justify spending more resources on a fruitless quest for justice reform in Guatemala. A related imperative is reforming Guatemala's police forces, which are undertrained, underpaid, underequipped, and infected with corruption. President Colom deserves great credit for appointing Helen Mack, a widely respected human rights defender, to develop a plan for police reform, and I look forward to her recommendations. An Attorney General whose integrity matches that of Helen Mack's would be a welcome step. Guatemala has a troubled history and is facing immense challenges, both internally and along its borders, as it is rapidly becoming a favorite haven for Latin criminal organizations. Yet as the land of one of the most accomplished pre-Colombian civilizations in this hemisphere whose indigenous descendants enrich present-day Guatemala in countless ways, spectacular tropical forests and towering volcanoes, it is also a country with great potential. The United States is prepared to help tackle these challenges if Guatemalan Government officials in key positions merit our support. I urge President Colom to use the opportunity of selecting Guatemala's next Attorney General to send that message clearly.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to call the Senate's attention to the inspiring work of Donald and Sarah ``Sally'' Goodrich of Bennington, VT, through their efforts to turn their own devastating personal tragedy into new opportunity and hope for children and families a world away in Afghanistan. Confronted by the death of their son Peter aboard the flight that struck the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Don and Sally Goodrich channeled their grief and energy into a foundation established in his memory--a foundation with a unique and uplifting purpose. The Peter M. Goodrich Foundation provides food, clean water, shelter and educational opportunities to Afghan children facing extreme hardship, dismal circumstances and little hope for the future. The foundation's mission is far broader than offering basic humanitarian services to a country torn by conflict; its work recognizes the untapped potential of a generation of Afghan children, helping them to rise above hate and to embrace values based on understanding, tolerance and respect. With this vision and this goal, the Goodrich Foundation supports exchange programs that bring Afghan students to the United States and vocational programs that allow them to put their knowledge and skills to use upon their return to Afghanistan. The foundation also promotes the work of The Afghan Women's Writing Project, which helps Afghan women to be heard in their own right rather than solely through their male relatives. These are just a few examples of the tremendous amount of good the foundation has achieved in less than a decade. We can all be grateful to Sally and Don for opening their hearts, amid their personal grief, and lighting an enduring flame of hope after one of our Nation's darkest hours.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of the Senate the bravery and sacrifice of a great American, CPT John Lonergan, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry at the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. His memory will be commemorated on May 8, 2010, with the dedication of a monument in his hometown of Carrick on Suir, County Tipperary, Ireland. Amid severe famine and the 1848 rebellion against British rule, the Lonergan family was forced to flee Ireland and made their way to Vermont. In 1862, as the American Civil War erupted, John Lonergan mobilized Company A of the 13th Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the so-called ``Irish Company.'' His unit served 9 months of active duty in Virginia as part of the 2nd Vermont Brigade guarding the outer defenses of Washington, DC. As General Lee and General Grant maneuvered the armies of the South and North during the summer of 1863, Lonergan's Company A was sent on a forced march to Pennsylvania for what would be the Battle of Gettysburg. On July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Lonergan, now a captain, and his company successfully recaptured a Union cannon lost to the rebels and took prisoner more than 80 Confederate soldiers. Captain Lonergan was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his leadership and gallantry during this battle. The next day, he led his company of Vermont soldiers in an attack against the right flank of a massive Confederate assault on Cemetery Ridge. Company A made an invaluable contribution to drive back the Confederate charge at a crucial moment in the Battle of Gettysburg. After the War, Captain Lonergan worked to overcome existing prejudice against Americans of Irish descent by organizing the first public celebrations of St. Patrick's Day in Vermont. He never lost his love for Ireland, and he was apparently a passionate advocate for liberation from British rule. Captain Lonergan continued serving his new country as a U.S. Customs officer, assigned to duty in Montreal, Canada. He died in 1902 and was buried in Burlington, VT. We Vermonters are proud to recognize the bravery of Captain Lonergan, those of Irish descent who fought alongside him, and the thousands of other Vermonters who fought in the Civil War. Vermont, per capita, had more of its sons die fighting in the Civil War than any other State. For their service, bravery and sacrifice, we thank all of them, and all those who continue this proud tradition as they serve the Nation today in Afghanistan, Iraq and other outposts across the globe.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate acted to pass legislation that will extend key provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act through the end of April. The statutory licenses and Communications Act authorizations that are contained in this act allow consumers to receive broadcast network stations by satellite. These consumers are otherwise unable to receive these signals over-the-air, and ensuring that they continue to have access to network programming is critical. I understand that the House of Representatives also took up and passed the Senate measure last night. By passing this short-term extension, we can be sure that nobody will be left in the dark while Congress is away. I look forward to a full reauthorization of this act being signed into law once we return from Easter recess.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to break for Easter recess, I am pleased that it has acted to pass two pieces of legislation that will allow for the extension and reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that will extend key provisions of the Act through the end of April. Passing this short-term extension is necessary to ensure that consumers across the country retain access to network television content. Without it, these consumers would have no way to receive these signals. I understand that the House of Representatives also acted on this short- term extension last night. Today, the Senate passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010--STELA--which is a full, 10-year reauthorization. Since the inception of the distant signal license, the license has been reauthorized for 5-year periods, giving all stakeholders an opportunity to revisit it and Congress the opportunity to improve it. Reauthorizing the,law for 10 years is not my preferred course of action. In fact, the Senate previously passed a 5-year version of STELA that makes significant improvements to current law, as part of H.R. 4213, which is currently pending in the House of Representatives. The version of STELA passed by unanimous consent in the Senate today contains all of the improvements from the 5-year version. Nonetheless, it is my view that enacting a 5-year extension is preferable, given the rate at which technology is altering the marketplace. I urge the House of Representatives to enact STELA as swiftly as possible once Congress returns from Easter recess, and I look forward to working with them to accomplish that goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in addition to important improvements to the health reform bill President Obama signed into law this week, the reconciliation measure before the Senate also provides a significant investment in higher education. I have always strongly believed in the importance of a college education. Unfortunately, in recent years, average college tuition rates have increased faster than inflation, and have far outpaced student financial aid. Skyrocketing tuition is making it increasingly difficult for families to afford higher education. Many students are forced to take on significant debt, and too often are not able to complete college because of soaring costs. Especially during these difficult economic times we need to be doing more to address the rising costs of higher education and the growing need for student financial aid. I am glad to see that the measure in front of us today streamlines our student lending system and no longer subsidizes banks to lend to students risk free. By requiring that all future student loans be made directly to students through the Federal Government, this bill will save $61 billion over 10 years. Not only will this provision save the government money, but the Direct Loan Program is projected to save students millions of dollars in fees and interest payments. A portion of the savings from this bill will be used to fund the Pell Grant Program, which is facing a significant shortfall this year. The measure provides $13.5 billion in mandatory appropriations for Pell grants, and will provide additional mandatory funding to the program by tying increases to inflation. Combined with the investment in Pell grants in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act last year, which I was proud to support, the maximum Pell grant award will double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, Pell grants cover less than half as much tuition at a public college or university as they did just a few decades ago, so a significant investment in the program's growth is necessary to help the more than 8 million students who participate. I met with students who attended school in Vermont this week and they shared their stories about how important this program was to them, and how it was critical to their ability to attend college. No student should be denied the opportunities of a college education because of financial burdens. I am also pleased the changes to student lending in the reconciliation bill will help nonprofits to provide important loan servicing and counseling services to students and their families. Several States have established not-for-profit State agencies to administer financial aid and to provide their residents and students attending their schools with quality counseling services and low-cost loans. Vermont pioneered this movement by creating the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, more than 40 years ago. Since then, VSAC has worked hard to establish and maintain strong and longstanding working relationships with Vermont's higher education institutions as well as K-12 schools to provide outreach programs critical to the economic vitality of Vermont. The reconciliation bill will prohibit anyone other than the Federal Government from originating new Federal loans, but unlike the lending measure the House passed in July, the reconciliation package will help nonprofits continue to provide important college access and completion activities. This measure will double the funding directed to Vermont, which will help VSAC continue to counsel students and their families about entering and completing college. Additionally, the reconciliation legislation will allow non-profits to contract with the Federal Government to continue to service loans at a competitive market rate. I have heard from countless Vermonters about the invaluable services VSAC provides to help students attend and complete college. Just recently, a father of twins attending college in Vermont contacted my office to share with me the support that VSAC provided. If not for VSAC, he said, he did not think he could have made it through the paperwork or learned about the scholarships that were available. I am glad that Congress has recognized the importance of these services in States across the country and will allow for a continued role to help more students access and complete college. I look forward to continuing to work with VSAC to ensure their place as an important part of students' college experience.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today's final passage of this Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act marks the culmination of a decades- long struggle to make health insurance affordable to hard working Americans. This has been an arduous process, but it has proven that change truly is possible. America again has risen to meet one of its foremost challenges. Still, there is more work to be done to introduce competition into the health insurance industry. Today, health insurers do not play by the same rules of competition as do other industries. Benefiting from a 60-year-old special interest exemption, the business of insurance is not subject to the Nation's antitrust laws. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices and receive more choices. We can surely agree that health insurers should not be allowed to collude to set prices and allocate markets. Last fall, I introduced legislation to repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption. I held a hearing to examine the merits of this repeal, and worked to build bipartisan support. A few weeks ago, repeal of the antitrust exemption for health insurers became the first stand- alone part of the health reform package to pass the House, in a strong bipartisan vote of 406-19. Today I want to renew my call for the Senate to take up and pass this legislation to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies. As they begin to implement the measures included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services, other Federal agencies, and the States can all greatly benefit from the competitive analysis provided by both the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. The Justice Department and the FTC have the knowledge and experience to provide informed assessments of whether a marketplace is functioning properly, and when there may be warning signs that competitive abuses are taking place. Their expertise will ensure that the basic rules of fair competition apply to those reforms included in the new health insurance reform law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3564

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week, we saw what I have called the dawn of a new day of hope for tens of millions of Americans who have fallen through the cracks--or who worry with good reason that they may fall through the cracks--of our broken health insurance system. The signing into law of comprehensive health insurance reform by President Barack Obama ranks with the creation of Social Security and Medicare as a defining moment and legislative achievement. Congress and Presidents from both parties tried to reform the health insurance system for decades. Through an arduous process over the last year, America rose to meet one of its foremost challenges. This effort prevailed through the grueling gauntlet of obstructionism erected by defenders of the status quo. It took a year of debate, the work of numerous committees and both Chambers of Congress to enact health insurance reform and to begin to get a handle on costs by having Americans covered by health insurance. Now that comprehensive health insurance reform is the law of the land, the Senate is already working on improvements to this legislation. These include making coverage more affordable and creating a more equitable distribution of Medicaid reimbursements to States like Vermont that acted early and correctly on reform. Some are still in denial, and continue to resist the path to reform. Some in the Senate resist improvements to the aspects of the new law that they had previously criticized. They appear intent on voting against improvements and, in effect, in favor of the aspects of the law they had said raised concerns. Some opponents of reform continue to distort what this reform really means, and continue their misleading arguments and spurious attacks. Some appear to see political gain in trying to attack health care reform with lawsuits. This is an effort to have judges override the legislative decisions of Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. This is an effort to repeal through the courts what they cannot do in Congress. Regardless, health insurance reform is the law of the land. Every member of Congress takes an oath of office. Ours is to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' I take this oath very seriously and always have. We took it seriously during the many months of open and public debate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last year. During Senate debate last December, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I responded to arguments about the constitutionality of the bill's requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. During that debate, the Senate rejected a purported constitutional point of order raised by Republicans claiming that the individual responsibility requirement was unconstitutional. The Senate's judgment and mine were that the act was constitutional. This week the President signed the measure into law. This President has studied the Constitution. He has served in the Senate. He has taught classes on constitutional law. The oath he took when he became President of the United States of America is provided in the Constitution. He swore that he would to the best of his ability ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' I know President Obama and know that he takes his oath seriously. I know that when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, he understood it to be consistent with the Constitution. Despite the overheated rhetoric from opponents, the authority of Congress to act is well-established by the text and the spirit of the Constitution, by prior acts of Congress like Social Security and Medicare, by longstanding precedent established by our courts, and by the history of American democracy. These were arguments considered and rejected in congressional committees. They were arguments expressly considered by the Senate. Indeed the findings adopted and contained in the law itself are that the individual responsibility requirement is commercial and economic in nature, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is ``essential to creating effective health insurance markets.'' That is the congressional judgment. Ironically, the so-called individual mandate has long been a Republican proposal. The individual mandate was supported by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, when they opposed health care reform efforts during the Clinton administration. It was a part of the health care reform effort in Massachusetts supported by former Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican. This individual mandate did not originate with President Obama. In fact, when President Obama was a candidate, as a matter of policy he did not support the individual mandate requirement as part of his initial comprehensive health reform proposal. It was one of the hundreds of Republican health care reform ideas he came to support and that were included in the law as the bill was drafted, developed, debated and passed. Now that the law is enacted, some Republicans have changed their tune in order to undercut these reforms by suggesting that it is unconstitutional. Although the legislative record supports the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and expert after expert maintain that there is no question about congressional authority, I, again, recall what I set forth last December when the Senate considered this issue, made its findings and reached its determination. The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble that sets forth the purposes for which ``We the People of the United States'' ordained and established it. Among the six purposes set forth by the Founders was that the Constitution was established to ``promote the general Welfare.'' It is hard to imagine an issue more fundamental to the general welfare of all Americans than their health. The authority and responsibility for taking actions to further this purpose is vested in Congress by article I of the Constitution. In particular article I, section 8, sets forth several of the core powers of Congress, including the ``general welfare clause,'' the ``commerce clause'' and the ``necessary and proper clause.'' These clauses form the basis for Congress's power, and include authority to reform health care by containing spiraling costs and ensuring its availability for all Americans. Any serious questions about congressional power to take comprehensive action to build and secure the social safety net have been settled over the past century. According to article I, section 8: ``The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.'' This clause has been the basis for actions by Congress to provide for Americans' social and economic security by passing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those landmark laws provide the well-established foundation on which Congress builds with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As noted by Tom Schaller, enforcing the individual mandate requirement by a tax penalty is far from unprecedented, despite the claims of critics. Individuals pay for Social Security and Medicare, for example, by payroll taxes collected under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, FICA. These FICA payments are typically collected as deductions and noted on Americans' paychecks every month. As Professor Schaller recently wrote: ``These are the two biggest government- sponsored insurance programs administered by the [Federal Government], and two of the largest line items in the federal budget. These paycheck deductions are not optional, and for all but the self-employed they are taken out immediately.'' The individual mandate requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is hardly revolutionary when viewed against the background of Social Security and Medicare that have long required individual payments. Congress has woven America's social safety net over the last three score and 12 years. Congress's authority to use its judgment to promote the general welfare cannot now be in doubt. America and all Americans are the better for it. Growing old no longer means growing poor. Being older or poor no longer means being without medical care. These developments are all due to congressional action. The Supreme Court settled the debate on the constitutionality of Social Security more than 70 years ago in three 1937 decisions. In one of those decisions, Helvering v. Davis, Justice Cardozo wrote that the discretion to determine whether a matter impacts the general welfare ``is not confided in the courts'' but falls ``within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.'' Turning then to the ``nation- wide calamity that began in 1929'' of unemployment spreading from state to state throughout the Nation, leaving older Americans without jobs and security, Justice Cardozo wrote of the Social Security Act: ``The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.'' The Supreme Court reached its decisions upholding Social Security after the first Justice Roberts--Justice Owen Roberts in the exercise of good judgment and judicial restraint began voting to uphold the key New Deal legislation. He was not alone. It was Chief Justice Hughes who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish upholding minimum wage requirements as reasonable regulation. The Supreme Court also upheld a Federal farm bankruptcy law, railroad labor legislation, a regulatory tax on firearms and the Wagner Act on labor relations in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. The Supreme Court abandoned its judicially-created veto over congressional action with which it disagreed on policy grounds and rightfully deferred to Congress's constitutional authority. These Supreme Court decisions and the principles underlying them are not in question. As Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California Irvine School of Law wrote in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times: ``Congress has broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. In the last 70 years, no federal taxing or spending program has been declared to exceed the scope of Congress' power. The ability in particular of Congress to tax people to spend money for health coverage has been long established with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.'' I included this article in the Congressional Record in December. The opponents of health insurance reform are now going so far as to call into question the constitutionality of America's established social safety net. They would leave American workers without the protections their lifetime of hard work have earned them. They would turn back the clock to the hardships of the Great Depression, and thrust modern American back into the conditions of Dickens' novels. That path should be rejected again now, just as it was when another inspiring President led the effort to confront the economic challenges facing Americans 70 years ago. To strike down principles that have been settled for nearly three-quarters of a century would be wrong and damaging to the Nation, and would stand the Constitution on its head. For the past year we debated whether or not to pass health insurance reform. Before passing the law, we debated whether to control costs by having all Americans be covered by health insurance. We considered untold numbers of amendments in committees and before the Senate. That is what Congress is supposed to do. We consider legislation, debate it, vote on it and act in our best collective judgment to promote the general welfare. Some Senators agreed and some disagreed, but it was a matter decided by the full Senate. In fact, due to Republican obstruction, it took an extraordinary majority of 60 Senators, not a simple majority of 51, for the Senate's will to be done. The fact that Senate Republicans disagree with the majority's effort to help hardworking Americans obtain access to affordable health care does not make it unconstitutional. Nor does the fact that some partisans seek to make political gains by attacking the health care reform we have passed. As Justice Cardozo wrote in upholding Social Security: ``[W]hether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth . . . it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts.'' I agree. Justice Cardozo understood the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and the Supreme Court's precedent. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.'' In 1803, our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, upheld the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act in Stuart v. Laird, and noted that ``there are no words in the Constitution to prohibit or restrain the exercise of legislation power.'' That is true here, where Congress acted to provide for the general welfare of all Americans. I believe that Congress was right when it decided that the problems of the lack of availability and affordability of health care and of health insurance and the rising health care costs that burden the American people, is a problem, ``plainly national in area and dimensions,'' as Justice Cardozo wrote of the widespread crisis of unemployment and insecurity during the Great Depression. I believe that it was right for Congress to determine that it is in the general welfare of the Nation to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable quality health care. But whether other Senators agree or disagree with me, none should argue that we should turn back to clock to the Great Depression when conservative activist judges prevented Congress from exercising its powers to make that determination. In seeking to discredit health insurance reform, the other side relies on a resurrection of long-discredited legal doctrines used by courts a century ago to tie Congress's hands by substituting their own views of property to strike down laws such as those guaranteeing a minimum wage and outlawing child labor. They have to rely on such cases of unbridled conservative judicial activism as Lochner v. New York, Shechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, Reagan v. Farmers Loan and Trust and the infamous Dred Scott case. Those dark days are long gone and better left behind. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, our history and congressional action all stand on the side of Congress's authority to enact health insurance reform legislation. Under article I, section 8, Congress has the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.'' Since at least the time of the Great Depression and the New Deal, Congress has been understood and acknowledged by the Supreme Court to have power pursuant to the commerce clause to regulate matters with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long since upheld laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act against commerce clause challenges, ruling that Congress had the authority to outlaw child labor. The days when women and children could not be protected, when the public could not be protected from sick chickens infecting them, when farmers could not be protected and when any regulation that did not guarantee profits to corporations would be voided by the judiciary are long past. The reach of Congress' commerce clause authority has been long established and well settled. Even recent decisions by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican- appointed justices have affirmed this rule of law. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress had the power under the commerce clause to prohibit the use of medical marijuana even though it was grown and consumed at home, because of its impact on the national market for marijuana. Surely if that law passes constitutional muster, Congress' actions to regulate the health care market that makes up one- sixth of the American economy meets the test of substantially affecting commerce. Conservatives cannot have it both ways. Nor can they ignore the settled meaning of the Constitution as well as the authority of the American people's elected representatives in Congress. The regulation of health insurance clearly meets the test from Raich, since the activities ``taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.'' In fact, when the Senate considered the health insurance reform bill in December, it adopted a set of findings related to the impact of the individual mandate on interstate commerce. Among those findings, now the law, were that ``health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy,'' that the individual ``requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased'' and that the ``requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets.'' These findings demonstrate that Congress took into account the significant cumulative economic effects on the Nation of the rising costs of health care, with those costs making up a large percentage of our economy and with American businesses struggling to provide benefits to their employees. As set forth in a paper by Georgetown University and the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, which I discussed in December, the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance would address the problem of free riders, millions of Americans who refuse to buy health insurance and then rely on expensive emergency health care when faced with medical problems. This shifts the costs of their health care to people who do have insurance, which in turn has a significant effect on the costs of insurance premiums for covered Americans and on the economy as a whole. A requirement that all Americans have health insurance--like requirements to pay FICA--is within congressional power if Congress determines it to be essential to controlling spiraling health care costs. In passing health care reform, Congress determined that requiring that all Americans to have health insurance coverage, and preventing some from depending on expensive emergency services in place of regular health care, can and will help reduce the cost of health insurance premiums for those who already have insurance. Addressing these problems is at the core of Congress's powers under the commerce clause. In fact, the Supreme Court expressly addressed this issue 65 years ago, ruling in 1944 that insurance was interstate commerce and subject to Federal regulation. Congress responded to this decision in 1945 with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which gave insurance companies an exemption from antitrust laws unless Federal regulation was made explicit under Federal law. It is the immunity from Federal antitrust law enacted in McCarran-Ferguson that I have been working to overcome with the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. My proposal would repeal health insurance companies' antiquated exemption from the antitrust laws. These are the pro- competition rules that apply to virtually all other businesses, to help promote vibrant markets and consumer choice. Competition and choice help lower costs, expand access and improve quality. I launched this effort last fall, built a hearing record to examine its merits and worked to build bipartisan support. House leaders late last year added it to their plan. And last month it became the first stand-alone part of the health reform package to pass on its own, in a strong bipartisan vote of 406 to 19 in the House. To me this is the latest proof that, appearances aside, there is much common ground in the health reform plan--more than partisan opponents or the insurance industry would have the public believe. Why would this exemption have been necessary if insurance was not interstate commerce? I strongly believe that the exemption in McCarran- Ferguson is wrongheaded. But would anyone seriously contend that it is unconstitutional? Of course not. Now that we have enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I hope we will soon turn to this reform by taking up and passing the House-passed bill. We should end the health insurance exemption from our precompetitive Federal antitrust laws without delay. The Constitution contains in article I, section 8, the necessary and proper clause. That, too, provides a basis for congressional action. This clause gives Congress the power ``to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by his Constitution in the United States.'' The Supreme Court settled the meaning of the necessary and proper clause 190 years ago in Justice Marshall's landmark decision in McCullough v. Maryland, during the dispute over the National Bank. Justice Marshall's wrote that ``the clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers.'' The necessary and proper clause goes hand in hand with the commerce clause to ensure congressional authority to regulate activity with a significant economic impact. Congress has enacted and the President has signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This landmark legislation addresses our health care crisis and helps provide health care insurance for millions of Americans previously uninsured and seeks to encourage lower costs for Americans who are insured. We have acted to ensure that Americans not risk bankruptcy and disaster with every illness. Americans who work hard their entire lives should not be robbed of their family's security because health care is too expensive. Americans should not lose their life savings because they have the misfortune of losing a job or getting sick. That is not America. One of the great American successes of the last century was the establishment of a social safety net of which all Americans can be grateful and proud. Through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Congress established some of the cornerstones of American economic security. Comprehensive health insurance reform has now joined them. Congress has acted within its constitutional authority to legislate for the general welfare of all Americans. No conservative activist court, on any level, should overstep the judiciary's role by seeking to turn back the clock and deny a century of progress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, I was pleased to learn that a brave young woman, Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones, will finally have her day in court. Ms. Jones testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year about how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act has hampered American employees from having their civil rights protected. Ms. Jones was a compelling witness; her case deserves the attention of every Senator. When she was just 20 years old and was working overseas for the military contractor, KBR, Ms. Jones was sexually assaulted by her coworkers. She filed suit in Federal court alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and several state law tort claims including assault and battery. Both KBR and its former parent company, Halliburton, argued that her claims were subject to forced arbitration under a clause that Ms. Jones was required to sign as a condition of her employment. The district court agreed with the company in part. It dismissed her Federal civil rights claims because it found that they were subject to forced arbitration under her contract. But the court held that Ms. Jones could proceed to trial on some of her tort claims, albeit only after her civil rights claims had been decided in arbitration. Halliburton and KBR appealed to the Fifth Circuit court of appeals, arguing that under her employment contract and the Federal Arbitration Act, all of Ms. Jones's claims were subject to forced arbitration, including her assault and battery claims arising out of her alleged rape. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, and once again the companies appealed. In the interim, Congress enacted an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-118. That amendment was sponsored by Senator Franken and supported by Senators from both parties. It prohibited the U.S. Government from entering into contracts with and paying Federal tax dollars to corporations who force their employees to arbitrate their civil rights or tort claims related to sexual assault and harassment or take any action to enforce such forced arbitration clauses. I am pleased that the companies cited this law, which I was happy to support, as a reason for dropping their appeal. As we examined in our October hearing, however, millions of hard working Americans like Ms. Jones are being denied their civil and constitutional rights and being forced into arbitration merely by accepting a job offer that contains an arbitration clause as a condition of employment. There is no rule of law in arbitration. There are no juries or independent judges in the arbitration industry. There is no transparency or accountability. And unfortunately, there is often no justice. After more than 5 years of hard won challenges, Ms. Jones will finally be able to seek justice in a courtroom. But this small victory should not have been such a struggle. I will continue to work to ensure that Americans have a meaningful choice about whether or not to enter a predispute arbitration agreement--no American should be forced to forfeit their access to the courts in order to get a job or a product or a service. Arbitration clauses like the one in Ms. Jones's contract strip Americans of the civil rights protections many of us in Congress have fought for so long to enshrine in our law. Legislation such as Senator Feingold's Arbitration Fairness Act, S. 931, which would make mandatory predispute arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes unenforceable, would correct these practices and restore fairness to the marketplace for jobs and other goods and services. Jamie Leigh Jones's struggle also highlights the importance of the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010, S. 2979, which I recently introduced. My legislation would fix outdated criminal laws by establishing that all U.S. government employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be charged and tried in the United States under American law. We must continue to protect victims like Ms. Jones and others who have their civil rights violated. I look forward to the day when justice is the norm, rather than the exception, in all cases like this.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to welcome two of President Obama's nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench in California: Professor Goodwin Liu, nominated to fill a vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, and Magistrate Judge Kimberly Mueller, nominated to a judgeship in the Eastern District of California. However, we will not be able to hear from those nominees today because Senate Republicans have anonymously objected to the hearing. They have continued their ill-advised protest of meaningful health reform legislation by exploiting parliamentary tactics and Senate Rules, to the detriment of the American people and, in today's instance, at the expense of American justice. I have previously accommodated requests from Judiciary Committee Republicans to delay the committee's hearing to consider Professor Liu's nomination. I had intended to hold this hearing 2 weeks ago but, at the request of Republicans, delayed it until today. We had agreed, instead, to proceed to a hearing for Judge Robert Chatigny, a nominee to the Second Circuit court of appeals, on March 10. Republicans then reversed themselves and asked for additional delay in connection with that March 10 hearing. I, again, accommodated them. Earlier this week I sought to move this afternoon's hearing to the morning, into the 2-hour window of time after the Senate convened, that would not be subject to this arcane objection. Republicans asked that we keep it scheduled for this afternoon because it worked better for the schedules of the Republican members of the committee, and they had planned to participate this afternoon. Now, having objected to holding the hearing this morning, they object to it not being held this afternoon. They pulled the plug on our hearing and put up roadblocks to the committee's process for working to fill judicial vacancies. It is particularly troubling that Republicans will not allow the committee to hear from Professor Goodwin Liu, a widely respected constitutional law scholar who they targeted for criticism and opposition the moment he was nominated. The day Professor Liu was nominated, committee Republicans declared themselves ``disappointed'' by the President's nomination of Professor Liu and claimed that Professor Liu was ``far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.'' Their opposition was instantaneous and the drumbeat has continued. Rather than give Professor Liu a chance to answer their questions and respond to their attacks, Republicans have now prevented Professor Liu from appearing, from answering their questions, and from addressing their concerns. They are being unfair. They are seeking to render him mute by their obstruction while they continue their attacks. Goodwin Liu, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, has a great American story and sterling credentials. He did not learn English until kindergarten, yet rose to graduate from Stanford University and Yale Law School and become a Rhodes scholar. After law school, Professor Liu clerked for DC Circuit Judge David Tatel and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He has a brilliant legal mind and is admired by legal thinkers and academic scholars from across the political spectrum. As conceded by a Fox News commentator, Professor Liu's qualifications for the appellate bench are ``unassailable.'' Professor Liu would also bring much-needed diversity to the Federal bench. There are currently no active Asian-American Federal appeals court judges in the country. Judge Denny Chin of New York has been nominated to the Second Circuit, but Senate Republicans have stalled his nomination for over 3 months, despite his unanimous approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Republicans have not given Professor Liu fair consideration. Like their practice of pocket-filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees in the 1990s, the decision by Republicans to block the hearing today gives Professor Liu no chance to respond to the attacks that they began weeks ago. Republicans' filibusters and stalling tactics have been evident since President Obama took office. Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominations before the President had made a single one. They insisted on filibustering the nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a well-respected mainstream district court judge who had the support of Indiana Senator Dick Lugar, the senior Republican in the Senate. They forced the Senate to invoke cloture, a time consuming process, by refusing for months to agree to debate and vote on the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit. She was then confirmed by a vote of 99 to zero. The Republicans tactics of obstruction have led to 22 judicial nominations stalled on the Senate's Executive Calendar and only 18 circuit and district court nominations confirmed. That lack of progress stands in stark contrast to this date in 2002, when a Democratic Senate majority had proceeded to confirm 42 of President Bush's judicial nominations. Republicans obstruct virtually every judicial nominee. Even though 15 of the 18 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed have been without opposition, they have delayed and stalled for weeks and months as Republicans drag out the process and stall Senate consideration by withholding their consent. During President Bush's first 2 years the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. Republican obstruction has us on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and district court nominees before this Congress adjourns. Their approach has led to skyrocketing judicial vacancies, again, like the pocket filibusters they employed during the Clinton Presidency that led to a vacancy crisis in the 1990s. They do a disservice to the American people seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. We have to do far more to address the growing crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies, which now top 100. We owe it to the American people to do better. Sadly, actions like today's objections from Senate Republicans to the consideration of two nominations to fill vacancies on overburdened courts will be viewed as little more than what they are: petty, partisan politics with no regard for the priorities of the American people. I urge them to reconsider and allow this hearing to proceed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last Friday the Senate finally confirmed John G. Levi to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation. His nomination has been pending on the Senate Executive Calendar since October 21 when reported favorably by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Mr. Levi is a partner in the Chicago office of Sidley Austin LLP where he has spent more than 25 years specializing in employment litigation, executive compensation, and labor-management relations. Despite the demands of his legal practice, he has always found time to give back to the community. In addition to leading his law firm's adopt-a-school program, where he oversees lawyers and staff involved in mentoring activities in public schools, Mr. Levi has been involved in juvenile justice and access of justice issues, serving on both the Cook County Citizens' Committee for the Juvenile courts, and the board of the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation. He also serves on the advisory board for the Northwestern University Law School Center on Wrongful Convictions. He is the immediate past president and longtime trustee of the Francis W. Parker School in Chicago. He is the recipient of the 2004 Abraham Lincoln Marovitz ``Lend A Hand'' volunteer award, and was awarded a honorary diploma by the Parker School in 2003. Considering Mr. Levi's strong commitment to public service, it is not surprising that President Obama has appointed him to the Board that oversees the vital work of the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. The LSC is the Federal agency that coordinates provisions to ensure that low- income Americans have access to adequate legal representation. The corporation employs lawyers who are experts in areas such as health care, housing, Social Security, consumer problems, welfare, and employment. These immensely important issues affect millions of Americans each year; many of whom are unable to afford legal assistance when they need it most. I know that in my own State of Vermont, LSC has provided legal assistance to many low income people in such matters and that local legal aid lawyers rely extensively on their national support centers. The Legal Services Corporation plays a critical role in ensuring that justice is carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution's promise, and when justice is served fairly, it benefits us all and strengthens the integrity of our legal system. I will always remember the important service to the country provided by his father, Attorney General Edward H. Levi, at a difficult time in our Nation's history. His is a family of outstanding lawyers. They have made a significant contribution and make a significant difference to the people who need the protection of the law. John Levi is a strong addition to LSC's board of directors. I congratulate him and his family on his confirmation. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on March 6, the USS Dewey--DDG 105--was commissioned at the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach, CA. The Dewey, an Arleigh Burke-class ship, is the Navy's newest and most technologically advanced guided-missile destroyer. The ship's sponsor, Deborah Mullen, the wife of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, christened the ship in January of 2008 during a ceremony at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, MS. Mrs. Mullen recently visited Vermont with Chairman Mullen as they came to a deployment ceremony for the Vermont Army Guard 86th Brigade which is now serving in Afghanistan. The new destroyer honors Navy Admiral George Dewey and is the third U.S. Navy ship to be named after him. Admiral Dewey, who is from my hometown, Montpelier, VT, became an American hero in 1898 for leading his squadron of warships against the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay. Under his leadership, the U.S. Navy destroyed the Spanish fleet in only 2 hours without the loss of a single American vessel. Dewey was promoted to admiral of the Navy in 1903, a rank which was created for him. The new USS Dewey has the ability to conduct a wide range of operations. The ship contains a multitude of offensive and defensive weapons and will be capable of fighting air, surface, and subsurface battles simultaneously. The USS Dewey is an example of how naval warships have the flexibility to conduct a variety of missions. We Vermonters are proud that another ship has been named after Admiral Dewey. I wish Godspeed to the ship and its crew.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Justice Thompson on what should be her confirmation by the Senate today as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. President Obama has made another outstanding judicial nomination. The Senators from Rhode Island have worked tirelessly to bring this matter to conclusion with a Senate vote since her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee 2 months ago. It has been 2 weeks since the Senate has acted on any of the 18 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that are being stalled by Republican obstruction on the Senate Executive Calendar. It has been almost 4 months since I began publicly urging the Senate Republican leadership to abandon its strategy of obstruction and delay of the President's judicial nominees. Regrettably, their practices continue. Even though Justice Thompson is a well-respected judge who has more than two decades of experience on her State's courts, and whose nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote, her nomination has been stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar for nearly 2 months. Justice Thompson's nomination is not the only one being stalled despite having been reported without opposition by the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are a dozen such nominations ready for consideration and confirmation that have been stalled without reason or explanation. They could and should all be considered and confirmed without further delay. In addition there are another half dozen judicial nominees awaiting final consideration by the Senate that were reported with just a single, or a few, negative votes. Those should be debated and voted upon without more delay. If Republicans would enter into time agreements, they would be considered. We should not have to go through another filibuster and cloture vote like that on Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia, whose nomination was stalled for 4 months and then approved 99 to 0. There was no reason for that delay. Yet it amounted to a Republican filibuster until it was finally ended 2 weeks ago by the majority leader and that Senate vote. Just yesterday, more than a dozen Senators spoke about the delays and obstruction of the President's nominees. Many Senators spoke about the recent Republican filibuster of Judge Barbara Keenan. The Senator from Pennsylvania spoke about the nominee stalled since December to fill a Pennsylvania vacancy on the Third Circuit. The Senators from North Carolina and Maryland noted that two well-qualified nominees to vacancies on the Fourth Circuit remain stalled. And the Senator from Rhode Island, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, spoke of the nomination on which we are finally being allowed to vote today, that of Justice Rogeriee Thompson. When the Senate confirms Justice Thompson, we will be confirming the first African American to serve on the First Circuit, and only the second woman. She is a trailblazer and an extraordinary woman. She will be an outstanding Federal judge. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 35 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees to the Senate for final consideration and confirmation. Only 17 of these have been confirmed. Justice Thompson's nomination will be the 18th. There are another five judicial nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week, bringing the total awaiting final action by the Senate to 22. Despite skyrocketing vacancies--now totaling over 100, more than 30 of which are ``judicial emergencies''--we are far behind the pace for considering nominations set by the Democratic majority during President Bush's first 2 years in office. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district court nominations and there was only a single judicial nomination pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Only a single nomination was pending. In stark contrast, to date the Senate has confirmed just 17 of President Obama's district and circuit court nominees, with an embarrassing backlog of 18 judicial nominations on the calendar awaiting Senate action. We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and district court nominees during this Congress, which would easily be the lowest in memory. We have to do far more to address this growing crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies. The Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and delay the Senate from considering President Obama's nominations is working, at great cost to the American people. Their failure to do their constitutional duty of considering the President's nominations is encumbering judges across the country with overloaded dockets and preventing ordinary Americans from seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. This is wrong. We owe it to the American people to do better. The refusal by Republicans to make progress considering judicial nominations is hard to understand given the work President Obama has done to reach across the aisle to work with Republican Senators in making judicial nominations. Unlike the often partisan and divisive picks of his predecessor, President Obama deserves praise for working closely with home State Senators, whether Democratic or Republican, to identify and select well-qualified nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet Senate Republicans delay and obstruct even nominees chosen after consultation with Republican home State Senators. Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite support for his nomination from the senior Republican in the Senate, Dick Lugar of Indiana. Republicans delayed for months Senate consideration of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit despite the endorsement of both her Republican home State Senators. The nomination of Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, endorsed by home State Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and reported by the committee with bipartisan support, has remained stalled on the calendar since last year. The nominations of Judge James A. Wynn and Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit both have Senator Burr's strong support and yet have remained on the calendar for more than 6 weeks. The list goes on. President Obama has worked closely with home State Republicans Senators, but Senate Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly. Indeed, the demand for consultation with home State Senators was the purported basis for the threat from Senate Republicans to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominations before he had made a single one. They wrote in their March 2, 2009, letter to the President: ``[I]f we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.'' Yet despite the fact that they were consulted and that Senator Lugar did approve, Senate Republicans insisted on filibustering Judge Hamilton's nomination. Despite consultation, there are still a dozen and one-half judicial nominations stalled on the Executive Calendar. After Republican Senators pocket-filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, denying them even hearings and votes in committee and creating a vacancy crisis on the Federal bench, Democrats did not do the same to President Bush's nominees. We treated them much more fairly. We worked hard through 2001, even after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, holding hearings even during Senate recess periods, in order to swiftly consider President Bush's nominees. That is why by this date in 2002 the Senate had confirmed 41 judicial nominees. By contrast the confirmation of Justice Thompson will be only the 18th Federal circuit or district court judge nominated by President Obama to be confirmed. At this date in March 2002 there was a single judicial nominee awaiting Senate consideration. By contrast, today there are 18 stacked up because Senate Republicans refuse to consent to their consideration. Yet when Democrats refused to rubberstamp a handful of the most extreme, ideological, and divisive of President Bush's nominees--not the 60 nominations of President Clinton's that Senate Republicans pocket-filibustered, or the 18 we have stalled on the calendar right now--Republican Senators changed their tune, disavowed any responsibility for their obstruction of President Clinton's nominees, and contended that filibusters of judicial nominations were ``unconstitutional'' and ``offensive.'' The Republican leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee broke virtually every precedent and rule we had in order to force nominees through the committee, and the Republican leadership of the Senate sought to activate the ``nuclear option'' to break Senate rules and precedent in order to ram through each and every nominee. Unfortunately, those same Republican Senators that once threatened to blow up the Senate unless every nominee received an up-or-down vote are now engaged in another attempt to abuse the rules of the Senate and undermine the democratic process. Republican Senators who just a few years ago insisted that ``elections have consequences'' have now made the use of filibusters, holds, and excessive procedural delays the new normal in the Senate in order to thwart our ability to make progress addressing issues that affect all Americans. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ every delaying tactic they can, imposing on the Senate a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. A bipartisan group of Senators joined together in 2005 to end that last attempt by Republican leadership to abuse the rules of the Senate by joining in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head off the ``nuclear option'' that the Republican Senate leadership was intent on activating. Those same Republican Senators who agreed in that memorandum of understanding that nominees should only be filibustered under ``extraordinary circumstances,'' have abandoned all that they said they stood for by engaging in an effort to stall or prevent an up- or-down vote on nomination after nomination. We saw that with their attempt to filibuster the nomination of Judge Hamilton. Just 2 weeks ago a Republican filibuster of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth Circuit judge resulted from Senate Republicans refusing to agree to debate and vote on that nomination. The majority leader was required to proceed through a time-consuming procedure to end the obstruction. The votes to end debate and on her confirmation were both 99 to 0. That nomination had been reported in October. So after more than 4 months of stalling, there was no justification, explanation, or basis for the delay. That is wrong. That was the 17th filibuster of President Obama's nominations. And that does not include the many other nominees who were delayed or who are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. So why are Republicans so insistent on reversing themselves and applying new standards to halt our progress filling vacancies on the Federal courts? Why have they insisted on departing so radically from the standards set by the Democratic majority during the first two years of the Bush Administration when we confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations in 17 months? Why have they rejected President Obama's efforts to reach across the aisle and nominate well-qualified mainstream nominees? Why are they intent on constructing procedural hurdles to delay and deny up-or-down votes to nominee after nominee? The American people should see this for what it is: More of the partisan, narrow, ideological tactics that Senate Republicans have been engaging in for decades as they try to pack the courts with ultraconservative judges. What is at stake for the American people are their rights, their access to the courts, and their ability to seek redress for wrongdoing. For all the talk we heard about ``judicial modesty'' and ``judicial restraint'' from the nominees of President Bush at their confirmation hearings, we have seen Federal courts--most notably the Supreme Court-- these last 5 years that has been anything but modest and restrained. Conservative activist judges are time and time again substituting their personal beliefs to the law and the judgment of elected officials. That is what we saw in the recent decision by a narrow five-justice majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a decision that gutted bipartisan laws enacted to protect the ability of individual Americans to participate in elections and not have their voices drowned out by corporations. Regrettably, that decision is only the latest example of the willingness of a narrow majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to suit their own agenda. The Citizens United decision reinforces the profound concern I have had about the real-world consequences of recent court decisions for hardworking Americans. On issues like equal pay for equal work; the power of Congress under the 14th and 15th amendments to pass civil rights laws like the Voting Rights Act; and issues thought to be long settled like the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education, the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems determined to accrue to itself the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and to rewrite long-established precedents. The lower courts must follow suit. Make no mistake, this is the product of years of work by Republicans catering to the far right to remake the courts and reshape the law from the bench. Republican Senators who demanded up-or-down votes for even the most extreme and ideological nominees of a Republican President now balk at the consideration of well-qualified, mainstream nominees of a Democratic President. The many years Democratic Senators worked to be fairer to President Bush's nominees than the Republican majority had been to President Clinton's nominees have been cast aside and forgotten by the Republican minority. Justice Thompson's nomination is noncontroversial and should easily be confirmed. I urge the Senate also to take responsible action to consider the other 17 judicial nominations still awaiting a vote by the Senate. The Senate can more than double the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by considering not only Justice Thompson's nomination but the other judicial nominees on the calendar. We should do that now, without more delay, without additional obstruction, to put us back on track. Senators should work together to do our jobs for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will agree to this resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Long Trail and the Green Mountain Club. In March 1910, James P. Taylor, a teacher from Vermont, fulfilled a dream held by many when he founded the Green Mountain Club, and created a long-distance trail to extend from Massachusetts to Canada. Spanning over 273 miles, the Long Trail is the oldest long-distance hiking trail in the United States, and has survived many floods, hurricanes, and harsh Vermont winters. The Long Trail's scenic and varied landscapes, from the alpine peaks of Camel's Hump and Mount Mansfield, to quiet woodland trails and mountain streams, have delighted countless tourists who have visited the Green Mountain state. Several Senators, a Secretary of Agriculture, and even a President have all enjoyed the trail. It is only through the hard work of the thousands of Green Mountain Club volunteers that the Long Trail has flourished and grown during the last century. The Green Mountain Club has resisted efforts to build highways or commercial developments that intersect with the Long Trail, and helped to maintain pristine Vermont forestland that we all love for future generations to enjoy. They have protected the habitat of many important woodland species, including the black bear, the moose, the bobcat, and migratory songbirds. I was pleased to secure funding to help the Green Mountain Club renovate their headquarters and visitors center in 2008 in anticipation of the centennial, so that Vermonters and tourists alike can enjoy Vermont's natural beauty for another 100 years. I join with all Vermonters, and the thousands of people from across the United States and around the world who have enjoyed the beauty of the Long Trail, in celebrating this centennial celebration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join Senators from both sides of the aisle to pass the historic and bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act. The racial imbalance that has resulted from the cocaine sentencing disparity disparages the Constitution's promise of equal treatment for all Americans. Although this bill is not perfect, its passage marks a significant step forward in making our drug laws fairer and more rational. Despite my belief that parity was the better policy, I have joined with Senator Durbin and support the progress represented by his compromise with Senator Sessions. It reduces the disparities that leave some in jail for years while their more privileged counterparts go home after relatively brief sentences. Today, that compromise means we are one step closer to fixing this decades-old injustice. I commend Senators Durbin, Sessions, Graham, Coburn, and Hatch for negotiating the compromise that allowed this important piece of legislation to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote. As chairman, I was able to report on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee the first measure we have ever been able to approve that begins to undo the unjust sentencing disparity. For more than 20 years, our Nation has used a Federal cocaine sentencing policy that treats ``crack'' offenders 100 times more harshly than other cocaine offenders, without a legitimate basis for the difference. We know that there is little or no pharmacological distinction between crack and powder cocaine, yet the resulting punishments for these offenses is radically different and unjust. This policy is wrong and unfair, and it has needlessly swelled our prisons, wasting precious Federal resources. These disproportionate punishments have had a disparate impact on minority communities. This is unjust and runs contrary to our fundamental principles of equal justice under law. According to the latest statistics of the independent and nonpartisan United States Sentencing Commission, African Americans continue to make up the large majority of Federal crack cocaine convictions, accounting for 80 percent of all Federal crack cocaine offenses, while they represent a much smaller fraction of those who use the drug. In a letter to our committee, John Payton, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, called this disparity ``one of the most notorious symbols of racial discrimination in the modern criminal justice system.'' These disparate penalties, which Congress created in the mid-1980s, have failed to address basic concerns. The primary goal underlying the crack sentence structure was to punish the major traffickers and drug kingpins who were bringing crack into our neighborhoods. But the law has not been used to go after the most serious offenders. In fact, just the opposite has happened. The Sentencing Commission has reported for many years that more than half of Federal crack cocaine offenders are low-level street dealers and users, not the major traffickers Congress intended to target. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2009 returns the focus of Federal cocaine sentencing policy to drug kingpins, rather than street level dealers, and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of crack cocaine. The 5-year mandatory minimum sentence penalty for simple possession of crack is unique under Federal law. There is no other mandatory minimum for mere simple possession of a commonly abused drug. This bill does not legalize drugs, nor does it eliminate harsh sentences. In fact, this bill toughens some penalties. It increase fines for major drug traffickers and provides sentencing enhancements for acts of violence committed during the course of a drug trafficking offense. But this bill also helps to ensure that our system will no longer affect many minority and urban communities more harshly than offenders who use drugs in the suburbs and corporate offices. That inequality has reduced trust in law enforcement and cooperation with police, which makes us all less safe. American justice is about fairness for each individual. To have faith in our system, Americans must have confidence that the laws of this country, including our drug laws, are fair and administered fairly. We must be smarter in our Federal drug policy. Law enforcement has been and continues to be a central part of our efforts against illegal drugs, but we must also find meaningful, community-based solutions which enable people to feel they are being treated fairly. I look forward to working with Chief Kerlikowske, the director of the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, to develop and deploy such a strategy. Since 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission has issued report after report calling on Congress to address this unfair sentencing disparity. We would not be making the progress we are today without the leadership of the United States Sentencing Commission. I thank them and their chairman, Judge William Sessions. I thank the U.S. Department of Justice for the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at our hearing on this matter last year. Attorney General Eric Holder also reminded us that ``the stakes are simply too high to let reform in this area wait any longer.'' I agree. It is time for the Senate and House to act. After more than 20 years, the Senate has finally acted on legislation to correct the crack-powder disparity and the harm to public confidence in our justice system it created. Although this bill is not perfect and it is not the bill we introduced in order to correct these inequalities, I believe the Fair Sentencing Act moves us one step closer to reaching the important goal of equal justice for all. I urge the House to act quickly so that the President can sign this historic legislation into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many Senators are speaking on the Senate floor today about the Republican delays and obstruction of President Obama's nominations to fill critical posts throughout the executive branch. Republicans have engaged in a partisan effort to block scores of nominations, preventing up-or-down votes in the Senate. This Republican effort has prevented the Senate from considering well-qualified public servants like Professor Chris Schroeder, who was first nominated by President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months. Not a single Republican explained the reason for the delay. Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session. It was returned to the President with no action. President Obama nominated Professor Schroeder again this year, and again his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee with Republican support. An esteemed scholar and public servant who has served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across the political spectrum. We treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President Obama's, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96 to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June. It is time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination. In addition to the many executive branch nominees currently stalled on the Senate calendar, there are 18 judicial nominees that have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee--most of them unanimously--who await Senate consideration. That is more nominees than the total of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees-- 17--that have been confirmed since he took office. This sorry state of affairs is the result of a Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and delay that has existed throughout President Obama's time in office. The casualties of this effort are the American people who seek justice in our increasingly overburdened Federal courts. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district court nominations. That was a tumultuous period in which Senate Democrats worked hard to make progress with a staunchly partisan Republican President. It included the period of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks upon the Senate. In contrast, the Senate has confirmed just 17 Federal and circuit court nominees--just 17--during President Obama's first term. We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and district court nominees during this Congress, which would be easily the lowest in memory. That number stands in sad contrast to the 100 judges we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee for 17 months during President Bush's first term. When we were reviewing the judicial nominees of a President of the other party, and one who consulted across the aisle far less than President Obama has, we confirmed 100 judges in just 17 months. President Obama is in his 14th month and Senate Republicans have allowed only 17 Federal circuit and district court judges to be confirmed. We are 24 behind the pace we set in 2001 and 2002. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 35 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees to the Senate for final consideration and confirmation. Eighteen of those nominees are still awaiting a vote by the Senate. The Senate can more than double the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by considering the other judicial nominees already before the Senate awaiting final action. We should do that now, without more delay, without additional obstruction. There are another five judicial nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week. They will bring the total awaiting final action by the Senate to 23. Confirming them without unnecessary delay would put us back on track. While Republican Senators stall, judicial vacancies continue to skyrocket. Vacancies have already grown to more than 100, undoing years of our hard work repairing the damage done by Republican pocket filibusters of President Clinton's judicial nominees. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's last year in office, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a presidential election year.When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits. As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked and are being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. More than 30 of the vacancies on our Federal courts today are classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' This is another reversal of our hard work during the Bush administration when we reduced judicial emergencies by more than half. Those vacancies have now increased dramatically, encumbering judges across the country with overloaded dockets and preventing ordinary Americans from seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. This is wrong. We owe it to the American people to do better. President Obama deserves praise for working closely with home State Senators, whether Democratic or Republican, to identify and select well-qualified nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet Senate Republicans delay and obstruct even nominees chosen after consultation with Republican home State Senators. President Obama has worked closely with home State Republican Senators, but Senate Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly. Last year, President Obama sent 33 Federal circuit and district court nominations to the Senate, but the Senate confirmed only 12 of them, the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more than 50 years. Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite support for his nomination from the senior Republican in the Senate, Dick Lugar of Indiana. Republicans delayed for months Senate consideration of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit despite the endorsement of both her Republican home State Senators. When Republicans finally agreed to consider her nomination on January 20, she was confirmed unanimously. Whether Jeffrey Viken or Roberto Lange of South Dakota, who were supported by Senator Thune, or Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Florida, who was supported by Senators Martinez and LeMieux, virtually all of President Obama's nominees have been denied prompt Senate action by Republican objections. I noted when the Senate considered the nominations of Judge Christina Reiss of Vermont and Mr. Abdul Kallon of Alabama relatively promptly that they should serve as the model for Senate action. Sadly, they are the exception rather than the model. They show what the Senate could do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are delayed. When the Senate does finally consider them, they are confirmed overwhelmingly. In December, I made several statements in this Chamber about the need for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle and made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on those judicial nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others. I have recently reiterated my proposal and urged Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy of obstruction. There is no justification for these nominations to be dragged out week after week, month after month. The last time the Senate considered judicial nominations was weeks ago. Indeed, on March 2, the Republican filibuster and obstruction of the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth Circuit Judge had to be ended by invoking cloture. Senate Republicans would not agree to debate and vote on her nomination and the majority leader was required to proceed through a time consuming procedure to end the obstruction. The votes to end debate and on her confirmation were both 99 to 0. That nomination had been reported in October. So after more than 4 months of stalling, there was no justification, explanation or basis for the delay. That is wrong. That was the 17th filibuster of President Obama's nominations. The 18 judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration are: Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Justice Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; Justice Louis Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Nancy Freudenthal, nominated to the District of Wyoming; Denzil Marshall, nominated to the Eastern District of Arkansas; Benita Pearson, nominated to the Northern District of Ohio; Timothy Black, nominated to the Southern District of Ohio; Gloria M. Navarro, nominated to the District of Nevada; Audrey G. Fleissig, nominated to the Eastern District of Missouri; Lucy H. Koh, nominated to the Northern District of California; Jon E. DeGuilio, nominated to the Northern District of Indiana; Tanya Walton Pratt, nominated to the Southern District of Indiana; and Jane Magnus-Stinson, nominated to the Southern District of Indiana. Twelve of the 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without opposition; one had a single negative vote. The stalling and obstruction should end and these nominations should be considered by the Senate and voted upon without further delay. When they are, they, too, will be confirmed overwhelmingly. I also want to highlight my concern about the new standard the Republican minority is applying to many of President Obama's district court nominees. Democrats never used this standard with President Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. In 8 years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district court nomination by a party-line vote. That was the controversial nomination of Leon Holmes, who was opposed not because of some litmus test, but because of his strident, intemperate, and insensitive public statements over the years. During President Obama's short time in office, not one, not two, but three district court nominees have been reported on a party-line vote as Senate Republicans look for any reason to oppose every nomination. I hope this new standard does not become the rule for Senate Republicans. Of the 17 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed, 14 have been confirmed unanimously. That is right. The delay and obstruction is so baseless that when votes are finally taken, they are overwhelmingly in favor and most often unanimous. There have been only a handful of votes cast against just three of President Obama's nominees to the Federal circuit and district courts. One of those, Judge Gerry Lynch of the Second Circuit, garnered only three negative votes, and 94 votes in favor. Judge Andre Davis of Maryland was stalled for months and then confirmed with 72 votes in favor. Judge David Hamilton was filibustered in a failed effort to prevent an up or down vote. So why all the obstruction and delay? It is part of a partisan pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate go slow. The practice is continuing. There have already been 17 filibusters of President Obama's nominees. That is the same number of Federal circuit and district nominees the Senate has confirmed during the entirety of the Obama administration. And that comparison does not include the many other nominees who were delayed or who are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their destructive strategy and to work with us to provide final consideration without further delay to the 18 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar awaiting final action. We can make real progress if they will join with us and we work together.