Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 3 p.m., to hold an International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Haiti Reconstruction: Smart Planning Moving Forward.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past year, President Obama has been working hard to restore America's credibility in the world and our reputation for justice and our commitment to the rule of law. A key component of that important mission is ensuring accountability for American contractors and employees overseas. Accountability is crucial, not just for our image abroad and our diplomatic relations, but for ensuring our national security. To restore accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American government employees and contractors wherever they act. Today, I join with Senator Kaufman to introduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA, to accomplish this important and common sense goal. Tragic events in Iraq in 2007 made clear the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing an international incident with the Iraqi government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, conducted a full-scale criminal investigation of the Blackwater shootings, and prosecutors brought indictments against five contractors. Last month, a Federal district judge dismissed all the charges because of an order from the past administration immunizing Blackwater contractors under Iraqi law and immunity commitments by the prior administration to obtain the testimony of some. Although the Justice Department is expected to appeal the dismissals, this could mean that those who perpetrated this act will not be held accountable. I believe that, had jurisdiction for these offenses been clear, FBI agents would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident of contractor misconduct, and accountability for U.S. Government contractors and employees is essential. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents in Iraq, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. In these cases too, there have not been prosecutions. Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and denied even access to a phone. Only after pleading with her captors was she eventually given use of a phone. She called her father, who contacted her Congressman, who in turn contacted the State Department. State Department officials were able to free her. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Today we seek to fix the outdated criminal laws that have also contributed to the failure to bring those who perpetrated this heinous crime to justice. Unfortunately, many other women have encountered similar abuse and have similarly seen their attackers escape any accountability. Also last year, we learned that contractors hired to secure the American Embassy in Afghanistan engaged in various forms of outrageous conduct but there, too, there have been no prosecutions. It is time to correct this injustice. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then again to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany the military, and to all contractors who support the Defense Department mission overseas. We wanted to make sure that all contractors working alongside the U.S. military or protecting U.S. interests overseas were held to the same standard that they would be at home. We pay these contractors with taxpayers' money, they represent the U.S. overseas, and they should be held to the same standards as our military. In 2007, I worked with then-Senator Obama and with Senators Sessions and Specter on further legislation which would have amended MEJA to make sure that all security contractors, not just those supporting the Defense Department, are accountable under U.S. law. Today, we introduce a bill that would finally address this issue in a comprehensive way, establishing clearly that all U.S. Government employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be charged and tried in the United States under U.S. law. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and numerous other Government agencies have employees, and in recent years, more and more private contractors, working abroad. There must be accountability for all of these people who represent our Government overseas. In those instances where the local justice system may be less fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the U.S., rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts. Not only will this bill help to provide justice in cases where there has been none, it will improve our national security by allowing prosecution of those who undermine our efforts to create stability and improve foreign relations. By ensuring accountability in cases of wrongdoing against citizens of the host country, as in the Blackwater case, we will increase international trust and cooperation, including from those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts. The current lack of accountability reduces international confidence in our military and our Government, which undermines our national defense. Moreover, the talented men and women we need to advance our national security efforts will be more likely to step forward and serve if we stamp out the lawless atmosphere in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation we introduce today would further increase accountability by providing additional resources and creating new units to investigate wrongdoing by contractors and employees abroad and by calling on the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Inspector General to report to Congress on investigations under this bill. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope it will be again. Senator Kaufman and I are willing to work to address any concerns with this legislation and to ensure that it promises justice in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, our national security. Congressman Price is introducing a companion bill in the House. I hope that we will be able to rapidly pass this important reform into law. As we seek to restore our Nation's historic role as one of responsible leadership in the world, we must ensure that the values that brought us to that leadership are firmly in place. One of those great American values is the rule of law. No one should be above the law, certainly not American employees and contractors representing this great nation throughout the world. This common sense bill would promote the rule of law throughout the world and make us stronger in the process. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past year, President Obama has been working hard to restore America's credibility in the world and our reputation for justice and our commitment to the rule of law. A key component of that important mission is ensuring accountability for American contractors and employees overseas. Accountability is crucial, not just for our image abroad and our diplomatic relations, but for ensuring our national security. To restore accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American government employees and contractors wherever they act. Today, I join with Senator Kaufman to introduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA, to accomplish this important and common sense goal. Tragic events in Iraq in 2007 made clear the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing an international incident with the Iraqi government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, conducted a full-scale criminal investigation of the Blackwater shootings, and prosecutors brought indictments against five contractors. Last month, a Federal district judge dismissed all the charges because of an order from the past administration immunizing Blackwater contractors under Iraqi law and immunity commitments by the prior administration to obtain the testimony of some. Although the Justice Department is expected to appeal the dismissals, this could mean that those who perpetrated this act will not be held accountable. I believe that, had jurisdiction for these offenses been clear, FBI agents would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident of contractor misconduct, and accountability for U.S. Government contractors and employees is essential. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents in Iraq, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. In these cases too, there have not been prosecutions. Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and denied even access to a phone. Only after pleading with her captors was she eventually given use of a phone. She called her father, who contacted her Congressman, who in turn contacted the State Department. State Department officials were able to free her. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Today we seek to fix the outdated criminal laws that have also contributed to the failure to bring those who perpetrated this heinous crime to justice. Unfortunately, many other women have encountered similar abuse and have similarly seen their attackers escape any accountability. Also last year, we learned that contractors hired to secure the American Embassy in Afghanistan engaged in various forms of outrageous conduct but there, too, there have been no prosecutions. It is time to correct this injustice. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then again to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany the military, and to all contractors who support the Defense Department mission overseas. We wanted to make sure that all contractors working alongside the U.S. military or protecting U.S. interests overseas were held to the same standard that they would be at home. We pay these contractors with taxpayers' money, they represent the U.S. overseas, and they should be held to the same standards as our military. In 2007, I worked with then-Senator Obama and with Senators Sessions and Specter on further legislation which would have amended MEJA to make sure that all security contractors, not just those supporting the Defense Department, are accountable under U.S. law. Today, we introduce a bill that would finally address this issue in a comprehensive way, establishing clearly that all U.S. Government employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be charged and tried in the United States under U.S. law. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and numerous other Government agencies have employees, and in recent years, more and more private contractors, working abroad. There must be accountability for all of these people who represent our Government overseas. In those instances where the local justice system may be less fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the U.S., rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts. Not only will this bill help to provide justice in cases where there has been none, it will improve our national security by allowing prosecution of those who undermine our efforts to create stability and improve foreign relations. By ensuring accountability in cases of wrongdoing against citizens of the host country, as in the Blackwater case, we will increase international trust and cooperation, including from those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts. The current lack of accountability reduces international confidence in our military and our Government, which undermines our national defense. Moreover, the talented men and women we need to advance our national security efforts will be more likely to step forward and serve if we stamp out the lawless atmosphere in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation we introduce today would further increase accountability by providing additional resources and creating new units to investigate wrongdoing by contractors and employees abroad and by calling on the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Inspector General to report to Congress on investigations under this bill. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope it will be again. Senator Kaufman and I are willing to work to address any concerns with this legislation and to ensure that it promises justice in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, our national security. Congressman Price is introducing a companion bill in the House. I hope that we will be able to rapidly pass this important reform into law. As we seek to restore our Nation's historic role as one of responsible leadership in the world, we must ensure that the values that brought us to that leadership are firmly in place. One of those great American values is the rule of law. No one should be above the law, certainly not American employees and contractors representing this great nation throughout the world. This common sense bill would promote the rule of law throughout the world and make us stronger in the process. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will try to end yet another Republican filibuster and invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor General for the Department of Labor. This is the 15th filibuster against President Obama's nominees. Commissioner Smith is a well-qualified nominee who has decades of experience working on labor issues, and a strong record as labor commissioner for the State of New York. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on her nomination in May and reported it favorably to the Senate last October. Commissioner Smith should have been confirmed long ago. However, as has become all too common in this Congress, the Republican minority continues to block the Senate from even considering her nomination and giving her the up or down vote they not long ago insisted was the constitutional right of every nominee. Instead, the Senate is faced with another Republican filibuster. Nothing I have seen suggests there is a reason to block Commissioner Smith's nomination from receiving Senate consideration. If some Senators oppose the strong enforcement of laws to protect American workers, they can vote against the nomination. Some seek to justify this delay by creating controversy over ``Wage Watch,'' a pilot program started by the New York Department of Labor under Commissioner Smith designed to encourage Department employees to report labor law violations. This seems to be a controversy generated by those who disagree with the program. What is so troubling about this filibuster is how difficult it has become to determine which nominations Senate Republicans are merely blocking as part of their political strategy of obstruction and delay of President Obama's nominees. If cloture is invoked and we are finally able to consider the Smith nomination, we will then have the opportunity to end the filibuster of another nomination, that of Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, GSA. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar since June 8 due to the opposition of a single Republican Senator over a dispute with GSA about plans for a Federal building in his home State. The will of the Senate and the needs of the American people are held hostage by a single Senator. This should not be the way the Senate acts. Last week in his State of the Union Message, President Obama told Congress and the American people: ``The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.'' Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated use of filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the new norm for the Republican minority. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. 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 any delaying tactic they can. The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill vacancies on the Federal courts, has had a devastating effect. As a result of this Republican strategy, there are currently 75 nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for important positions throughout the executive branch and the judiciary, all but nine of them pending since last year. There are 19 judicial and executive nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar that were reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of them reported with bipartisan support. In fact, 16 of the nominations reported by the committee were reported without a single dissenting vote. These nominations are not controversial. They should be easy to consider and confirm. Five more nominations reported by the committee were pending on the Senate Executive Calendar at the end of last year, but Republicans insisted that they be returned to the President rather than held in place. Two were judicial nominees and three were nominees to head divisions at the Justice Department as Assistant Attorneys General. One of those nominations had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote, with no dissent. Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session. Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed all last year, less than half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. We have confirmed only two more this year, after Republicans objected to consideration of the nomination of Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, a nomination reported by the committee last October 1 by unanimous consent. Democrats did not practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President Bush's nominations. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 30 circuit and district court nominations compared to only 14 for President Obama. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. During President Bush's last year in office, with Democrats again in the majority, we had 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 nine 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. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges. The rule of law demands more. The American people deserve better. Among the nominees ready for Senate approval are nine Federal judicial nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two would fill vacancies on the Third Circuit, three would fill vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, and there are nominees to fill vacancies on the First, Second and Sixth Circuits, as well as a district court nominee to Wisconsin. The delay in considering them is also part of this effort to delay and obstruct. Judge Greenaway, about whom Senators Lautenberg and Menendez spoke last week, was reported by unanimous consent back in October, four months ago. Two weeks ago the Majority Leader tried to get agreement to take up the nomination of Judge Greenaway, the next judicial nominee on the Senate Executive Calendar, but Republican objections continue to stall consideration. That is a shame. He is a good judge. Senator Sessions praised him at his confirmation hearing. Why he is being stalled I do not know, and no one has explained. Even after the statements by the New Jersey Senators, no one has come forward to explain the hold up from the Republican leadership. Judge Greenaway is one of the many outstanding judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee that remain stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. They should have been confirmed last year and would have but for Republican objection. When considered, they will be confirmed but not before being needlessly delayed for months. They insisted on debate on the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90 votes. Republicans insisted on hours of debate for the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November, having delayed its consideration for months. For at least 2 additional months, Judge Beverly Martin's nomination was stalled because Republicans would not agree to consider it before January 20. Judge Martin, of course, had the strong support of both of her home state Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, and the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. The Democratic leadership sought to build on our belated progress two weeks ago when we were allowed finally to consider and confirm Judge Martin. We asked for agreement to consider the nomination of Judge Greenaway. As the Majority Leader indicated two weeks ago: ``[The Democratic] majority was in a position to agree to a vote on the nomination of Joseph Greenaway to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. However, I was advised the Republicans would not agree to such request.'' This is Congressional Record S166, January 22, 2010, daily ed. Again, Senate Republicans have withheld consent and have objected to consideration of a nominee. None of the nine Federal circuit and district court nominations currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar should be controversial. Six were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. One had one negative vote, one had three negatives votes and the nominee from Tennessee supported by Senator Alexander had 4 negatives votes but 15 in favor, including 3 Republicans. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who are then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were finally allowed to be considered. That obstruction and delay continues. The American people deserve better. The cost will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. President Obama has reached across the aisle and worked with Republican Senators, including Senators Lugar, Martinez, Shelby, Sessions, Thune, Alexander, Burr, Chambliss and Isakson, who all have supported his judicial nominees. I wish Senator Republicans and the Senate Republican leadership would reconsider their tactics of obstruction and delay and work with us and with the President. The Republican minority must believe that this partisan playbook of obstruction will reap political benefit for them and damage to the President. But the people who pay the price for this political calculation are the American people who depend on the government being able to do its job. I hope that Republican Senators will rethink their political strategy and return to the Senate's tradition of promptly considering noncontroversial nominations. During his State of the Union Address last Tuesday night, President Obama talked with us about the ``deficit of trust--deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.'' He urged that we show the American people that we can work together. Regrettably the Senate is being required to dedicate today and tomorrow to freeing one of the long-delayed nominations the President has sent to the Senate for advice and consent. This is not working together. This is yet another instance in which Senate Republicans have decided to delay and obstruct.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada, the majority leader. Before I speak, I see the distinguished Republican leader. I will reserve my time and allow him to speak, of course.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Ten minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope the American people watched and heard President Obama's speech last night and were reassured. I know I was. There are so many things that he covered, I will not try to repeat all of them. I would like to expand on one of the very important matters he raised. On this, I will wear my hat as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision threatens to allow corporations to drown out the individual voices of hard-working Americans in our elections. By overturning years of work in Congress, years of work by both Republicans and Democrats alike--campaign finance laws, and by reversing a century of its own precedent, the conservative, activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections. The Citizens United decision turns the idea of government of, by, and for the people on its head. It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Congress, on behalf of the American people, struggled for years to enact campaign finance reform. Virtually every American wanted campaign finance reform. We finally did that in a bipartisan way in the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold Act overcoming a filibuster and passing it with a bipartisan supermajority. This milestone campaign finance reform strengthened the laws, protecting the interests of all Americans by ensuring a fair electoral process. It was a matter of serious consideration by Congress, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. In the 2003 case McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the McCain- Feingold Act against a First Amendment challenge. That was consistent with 100 years of judicial precedent and law, including a longstanding criminal law prohibiting corporations from contributing to Federal election campaigns. We have long prevented corporate contributions to Federal campaigns, at least since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt. The prohibitions included in the Tillman Act were signed into law in 1907. Now only 6 years after upholding 100 years of precedent, resolving the question in McConnell, and after a number of other Supreme Court opinions upholding these campaign regulations as needed to ensure fairness in elections, a thin majority of the Supreme Court, made possible by President Bush's appointment of Justice Alito, has thrown out important parts of the law, and they have run roughshod over a long line of longstanding Court precedent. This is a threat to the rule of law. It overrules congressional efforts to keep powerful, monied interests from swamping individual voices and interests. This decision puts the special interests of big oil, banks and insurance companies ahead of the interests of the American people, and it risks corrupting our political process. It shows no deference to Congress and no respect for the rule of law as reflected in the precedents of the Supreme Court. I agree with Justice Stevens, who wrote in his extraordinary dissent in Citizens United: [T]he 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. At his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito, under oath, testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly but also has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over the bounds and invading the authority of Congress. That was then when he was seeking confirmation. This is now. As Justice Stevens' dissent makes clear, the narrow majority of the Justices, including Justice Alito, substituted their own preferences for those of the duly-elected Congress, despite 100 years of the Supreme Court's own precedents. This is the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. That decision by the activist conservative bloc on the Supreme Court intervened in a presidential election. This decision is broader and more damaging in that they have now decided to intervene in all elections. Just as in Bush v. Gore, last week, the conservative activists currently on the Supreme Court unnecessarily went beyond the proper judicial role to substitute their preferences for the law. Last week's decision is only the latest example--yet perhaps the most extreme--of the willingness of a narrow majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to suit their own ideological agenda. I believe that the activist conservatives now on the Supreme Court got this decision dramatically wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation and also common sense. Corporations are not the same as individual American men and women. They do not have the same rights, the same morals, the same ideals. They do not vote. They do not have the same role in our election as individual citizens. When the Supreme Court made its landmark decision to ensure election fairness through the constitutional protection of the principle of one-person-one-vote, it did the right thing. Last week, the conservative bloc undermined that core constitutional principle by imposing its view that moneyed corporations should dominate the airwaves and election discourse. Rather than abiding by the limitations that Congress has developed to ensure a multitude of voices in the marketplace of election contests, they decided that the biggest corporations should be unleashed so that they can be the loudest and most dominant at the expense of our democratic principles. At the core of the first amendment is the right of individual Americans--individual men and women--to participate in the political process, to speak and, crucially, to be heard. That is what the campaign finance laws were designed to ensure; that American men and women could be heard and fairly participate in elections. This right is fundamental to the legitimacy of our democracy--to our ability to govern ourselves because it is the foundation of our other rights. Last week's decision puts these inalienable rights at risk by ignoring not only the extensive findings of Congress in passing the law but also logic and reality. The loud megaphones that can be bought by corporate money can drown out the unamplified voices of individual Americans. This is true even in an age when the Internet has vastly expanded avenues for citizens to speak to each other. The campaign finance laws passed by Congress reflected clear reasons for treating individuals and their free speech rights differently from corporations and their money. We have done so for at least 100 years. We sought additional reforms after the corruption of Watergate, and again at the turn of this new century. Those reforms and reasonable regulation are now left in tatters. The purported principles of the conservative activists cannot be limited to section 441b of title 2 of the United States Code, as amended by section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. If corporations can use their wealth to make independent expenditures for electioneering because they are now suddenly being given, by five people on the Supreme Court, constitutional rights in elections, what can prevent them from contributing to individual campaigns? What principle allows us to bar foreign corporations--foreign corporations--from likewise engaging in campaign communications? The largest companies garner annual profits of hundreds of billions of dollars. They are doing this even during one of the greatest financial disasters in our Nation's history. If even a fraction of that money were directed toward political activity, those companies would have the financial power to dominate and determine this country's elections and the laws of this country. To put this in perspective, as Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center pointed out after the decision, if Exxon-Mobil diverted only two percent of the $45 billion in profits it generated in 2008, ``this one company could have outspent both presidential candidates and fundamentally changed the dynamic of the 2008 election.'' The same could be said for numerous other companies who will now be able to dwarf the contributions and voices of individual Americans. The risks of this new ruling extend even further. The conservative activist majority in Citizens United fails to make clear whether the new ``rights'' it has conferred are limited to American corporations or if they apply to foreign corporations. Can the Chinese or subsidiaries of Chinese corporations or Saudi oil companies now also spend unlimited amounts of money and come in and decide, in effect, American elections? Saudi Aramco is estimated to be worth $781 billion. Petro China's estimated net worth is $100 billion, with profits rivaling Exxon Mobil's, in the tens of billions each year. Likewise, Venezuelan oil takes in tens of billions a year. A German insurance company named Allianz is worth $2.5 trillion. Another insurance concern, ING Group, is valued around $2 trillion. HSBC Holdings is valued at almost $2.5 trillion, with annual sales of almost $150 billion. Bank of American itself has sales of over $100 billion a year. Then there are the Wall Street firms and investment houses, which certainly will not support planned banking industry reforms. It is hard to envision this is what the Founders, who threw off the shackles of oppression, meant to enshrine in the Constitution when they wrote the First Amendment. It is also hard to understand how these conservative activists, who sound incessant alarm bells about the dangers of applying foreign law and recognizing rights for noncitizens in our courts, now cannot understand the threat of this encroachment on the very core of our democracy. The Citizens United decision is disconnected from the plain text and history of the Constitution, the careful policy choices of the elected branches, and the guidance of the Supreme Court's own legal precedents and the rule of law. I am also disappointed with the Justices, who as nominees before the Senate, when they were testifying under oath, proclaimed their belief in judicial modesty and judicial restraint, could then turn around and so brazenly ignore the proper judicial role and in so cavalier a manner overturn Supreme Court precedent and override the rule of law. In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that ``there were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken.'' In deciding an unnecessarily broad question--when the parties themselves advanced numerous, narrower grounds of decision--the ``majority has transgressed yet another `cardinal' principle of the judicial process.'' I cannot remember a time in my 36 years in the Senate when I have come to this floor to criticize even decisions I disagree with, but this one I am because it goes to the very core of our democracy, and it will allow major corporations, which should have laws written to control their effect on America, to instead control America. That is not the America I grew up in. It is not the America Vermonters believe in, where individuals have a right to speak but not mega corporations. How did the Court come to the opposite conclusion about the rights of corporations to spend unlimited money on elections from that enshrined in our laws and prior Supreme Court decisions? Did we amend the Constitution to somehow equate corporations to people? No, we did not. Nowhere does the Constitution even mention corporations. Did we modify the first amendment? No. The first amendment reads as it did 6 years ago--indeed, as it did 219 years ago, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the 14th State in the Union--Vermont--ratified the Constitution. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent: The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of the court. Six years ago Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the Supreme Court's majority upholding the limits on corporate spending in the McCain-Feingold Act, retired. The meaning of the Constitution should not change from one year to another due to the replacement of one Justice. As the dissenting Justices noted: [T]he final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis. . . . But if this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the rule of law, it must at least demand a significant justification, beyond the preferences of five justices, for overturning settled doctrine. As judicial nominees often testify, the rule of law depends on the stability provided by the consistent application and interpretation of the Constitution and the laws. So does the ability of Congress to act to pass laws. The Latin phrase that lawyers use to talk about the importance of respecting and following prior court rulings or precedent is ``stare decisis.'' As Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent: Stare decisis protects not only personal rights involving property or contract but also the ability of the elected branches to shape their laws in an effective and coherent fashion. That is why every Supreme Court nominee that I can recall who has appeared before the Judiciary Committee has been asked whether he or she is committed to following precedent. This is central to assuring us and the country that a Justice will be committed to the rule of law and understands the role of a judge. Courts should only depart from precedent with ample justification. As Justice Stevens wrote in dissent: No such justification exists in this case, and to the contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep the faith with our precedents. The same five Justices willing to overturn well-established precedent to create broad new rights for corporations in Citizens United had no trouble severely limiting free speech rights for individuals. In a 2007 case, Morse v. Frederick, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, held that the First Amendment did not protect an 18-year-old student from being suspended for holding up a banner across the street from a school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. They held the principal could suspend that student, a legal adult, for displaying the banner, not on school grounds, but across the street from the school. All that was needed was for the school administrator to believe that the banner somehow promoted illegal drug use and was therefore against the school's policy. Perhaps if that student had incorporated, these five Justices would now find his First Amendment rights protected. These are the same Justices who recently reached out to ban the streaming of public trial proceedings on a matter of public interest, as well, on similarly flimsy grounds in order to impose their own preferences. It is also difficult to understand the lack of concern in Citizens United for the potential of massive corporate spending to distort elections in light of the Supreme Court's ruling issued only months ago in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote that the possibility of bias due to campaign contributions in a state judicial election meant that the judge was wrong not to recuse himself from deciding a case involving a defendant who had spent $3 million supporting his election campaign to the bench. I agreed with that decision. There, Justice Kennedy wrote: We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias-- based on objective and reasonable perceptions--when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. What I do not understand is how these same standards and obvious logic were not applied to corporate spending in election campaigns. Last week's decision and its troubling inconsistency with the Court's other interpretations of the Constitution leaves with us serious questions about how to ensure that our elections are not corrupted by unchecked corporate spending. It also reinforces the profound concern I have had about the real-world consequences of the Supreme Court's recent decisions for hard-working Americans--real Americans--on issues such as equal pay for equal work; the power of Congress under the 14th and 15th amendment, to pass civil rights laws, such as the Voting Rights Act; and issues thought to be long settled, such as the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education. The newly constituted Supreme Court seems determined to accrue to itself the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and to rewrite long-established precedents, certainly acting contrary to what these same Justices said in their sworn testimony when they were being confirmed. The Judiciary Committee has explored these concerns in a series of recent hearings, and we will hold a hearing soon to examine the impact of the Citizens United decision. This case is just the latest example of why every seat on the highest court affects the lives of everyday Americans. I think every one of us, as Americans, must work to ensure that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders is not cast aside by the whimsical preferences of five Justices overriding the rights of 300 million Americans. I look forward to working with President Obama and Senators from both sides of the aisle as we try to restore the ability of every American to be heard and effectively participate in free and fair elections. Again, I can only emphasize that I do not recall a time in my 36 years coming here to speak about Supreme Court decisions I disagree with, even though there have been many. But this is so egregious that, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would feel I was neglecting my duties if I did not come and speak against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2960 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 2 days ago, Senator Coburn offered a series of amendments to the debt ceiling bill requiring $120 billion in funding cuts, including $1.3 billion from the State Department. During the debate on those cuts, Senator Coburn stated that the ``foreign ops appropriations increased by . . . 33 percent last year.'' If that were accurate, I would share the Senator's concern. But when the Senator purports to speak for the American people, as he often does, he should stick to the facts. The Senator surely knew that by suggesting the State and Foreign Operations budget increased by 33 percent in a single year he was distorting the actual increase, and that he was not counting the billions in supplemental funding for these programs in fiscal year 2009, every dollar of which was added to the Federal deficit and will have to be paid in future years because the former Republican administration wanted to pretend to be spending less. In its fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration, responding to pressure from Congress, stopped the budget gimmickry of funding ongoing programs like aid for Iraq, year after year, in off budget ``emergency'' supplementals. Instead, the President requested funding for these programs in its regular fiscal year 2010 budget. If you compare the fiscal year 2010 budget request with the fiscal year 2009 budget request minus the fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding, as the Senator from Oklahoma did, you obviously get a distorted result that suggests a much bigger increase than actually occurred. It makes a great talking point, it sparks cries of outrage, but it is not what actually occurred. The actual increase for State and Foreign Operations from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, if you count regular budget and supplemental appropriations, was 9 percent. And the bulk of that increase was for global health programs, to combat HIV/AIDS and H1N1, for humanitarian crises such as the funds we are using to save lives in Haiti today, and for personnel to fill vacancies at embassies and USAID missions around the world that have been short staffed--some by as much as 20 percent-- due to transfers of personnel to priority posts such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These increases were supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. As I said during the debate on the Coburn amendments, there may be programs that are not achieving the results they should and which can be eliminated. No one wants to waste money that could be better spent. But Senator Gregg, the ranking member, and I spend a good deal of time each year making the difficult choices that Senator Coburn declined to make when he proposed his 5-percent cut. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and accuse others of overspending when you do not take responsibility for determining what the actual needs are, and decide which programs to fund and which not to fund, whether they are requested by the President or by other Senators. If we had funded them all, we would have spent two or three times our allocation. We always stay within our allocation, which in fiscal year 2010 was close to $900 million below the President's budget. And we did it with no earmarks. So let's be honest about the budget. There was nothing close to a 33- percent increase last year, and it is important to set the record straight.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for President Obama's nomination of Benjamin Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Chairman Bernanke's nomination should be examined through the prism of how he performed during the recent financial crisis, and with full consideration of the best interests of the American people and their stake in the Nation's economic recovery. It is clear that prompt and decisive action by Federal officials like Dr. Bernanke saved the country from another Great Depression. Since the economic meltdown in the fall of 2008, the Federal government has committed its resources to quell the financial turmoil and stabilize the economy. The Federal Reserve, led by Chairman Bernanke, played a central role in these efforts. They cut interest rates early and aggressively, reducing the target for the Federal funds rate to nearly zero. They created targeted lending programs to restart the flow of credit in critical markets. They worked with other agencies--like the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and overseas central banks--to ensure that financial institutions worldwide had access to short-term funding. I supported these efforts to respond to the financial crisis to prevent the country from sliding into an economic depression, which was a very real possibility just a few months ago. Congress passed an economic rescue bill that staved off a full market retreat, and it enacted an economic recovery plan that is beginning to turn things around. Through these efforts our economy has begun to show signs of progress in recent months. But much more is needed to jump-start our economy, and the Federal Reserve needs to focus more on helping Main Street, not just Wall Street. While I believe Chairman Bernanke acted wisely during the worst of the economic crisis, he now needs to concentrate his efforts on a broader economic recovery by helping small businesses gain access to affordable capital to expand their markets and create more jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of Vermont's and the Nation's economy. During his second term, Chairman Bernanke must direct the Federal Reserve to do more to support small business economic growth. And with the Federal Reserve playing such a large role in the recovery effort, the American people deserve greater transparency by knowing the full extent of the Fed's lending programs, which is why I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Sanders to provide for a full audit of the funds released by the Federal Reserve. The early stages of an economic recovery are fragile--all the more during this recovery, as we inch back from a time, unprecedented in our lifetimes, when the United States and the world stood on the brink of financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Economic decisions and markets and ultimately our economy itself are unsettled by uncertainty, and the intended or unintended effects that a sudden turnover at the Federal Reserve would have right now on the economic recovery should not and must not be underestimated. When considering who would best fill important positions like Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the President and the Senate must ensure that Federal agencies are led by qualified and competent officials. Chairman Bernanke has helped to steer our financial and economic system through the worst financial storm in nearly a century. With much work remaining, I support his nomination for another term.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that. One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives. In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do. In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation. Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection. One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card. To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support. Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks. There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that. One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives. In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do. In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation. Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection. One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card. To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support. Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks. There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, legislation will facilitate trademark owners' maintenance of protection for their brands. I appreciate the Senate acting swiftly to pass this bill. Trademark protection is critical both for businesses that have invested in creating a reliable product, and for consumers who trust a ``brand name'' product to be safe and of high quality. Last Congress, I authored legislation to provide our law enforcement community with the tools, resources, and intragovernmental coordination necessary to combat intellectual property theft. Theft of intellectual property harms our businesses, weakens our economy, and costs jobs. I am proud that the legislation, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property, or PRO-IP, Act, was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 21 Senators, and was signed into law. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings in recent years on the importance of intellectual property protection. In 2004, Burton Snowboards, a successful Vermont business, testified before the Judiciary Committee about how small businesses were being harmed by the rise in intellectual property theft. I am pleased that this administration is taking intellectual property protection seriously, and that it recognizes that effective enforcement of our intellectual property laws is an important component of our economic recovery. The legislation we are introducing today is focused on the process for maintaining trademark protection. It is a targeted bill that will improve the efficiency of the trademark maintenance system. Inefficiencies cost businesses money, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and can cost workers their jobs. When Congress has an opportunity to take waste out of a government process, it should do so on a bipartisan basis. That is what we are doing today. This bill will harmonize the system for submitting maintenance filings to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO. Maintenance filings are required for continuing the protection of a trademark. Our legislation will also permit the Director of the USPTO to permit applicants to correct good faith and harmless errors and will make several technical amendments within our trademark laws. This legislation also requires a study of how the current system can better protect small businesses from abuses of the trademark system by larger corporations. Congress provides strong enforcement tools to intellectual property owners, as we should, to deter infringing activity and to remove counterfeit products from the market. I have become concerned, however, that large corporations are at times abusing the substantial rights Congress has granted them in their intellectual property to the detriment of small businesses. In fact, we saw a high- profile case like this in Vermont last year involving a spurious claim against Rock Art Brewery in Morrisville. When a corporation exaggerates the scope of its rights far beyond a reasonable interpretation in an attempt to bully a small business out of the market, that is wrong. This legislation therefore directs the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, to consider options for protecting small businesses from such harassing litigation, while ensuring that legitimate trademark infringement actions are handled efficiently and expeditiously by the courts. This is commonsense legislation, and I thank all Senators for supporting it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak for just 3 or 4 minutes, but I do not want to interrupt my friend from Alabama.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding time. Amendment No. 3303 Among the $120 billion in funding cuts that would be required by the Coburn amendment is a $1.3 billion rescission from the State Department. Section 13 of the amendment specifically directs the Secretary of State to eliminate two programs--the East-West Center and the Asia Foundation--saying this would produce savings. Even if it made sense to eliminate these programs which have a long history of achievement for our Nation and strong bipartisan, bicameral support, to do so would produce savings of only $42 million--a long way from the $120 billion about which he spoke. The Senator's amendment does not say where the balance of the $1.3 billion cut would come from. The Senator's Web site mentions two other small programs within the State and Foreign Operations budget that he believes should be cut which total $25 million, and $20 million of that, incidentally, is for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, something that gets us praise around the world and actually protects the well-being of everybody in this country. It has long been supported by the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. The explanation of the Senator from Oklahoma for eliminating these funds is that other nations should be responsible for the conservation of their own tropical forests. Would that it were so. But when they get cut down, they affect those of us in Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma, or anywhere else. In fact, it is like saying to other nations, no matter how impoverished--for example, Haiti--that they should take care of their own health needs. That ignores the fact that deadly viruses, such as HIV and TB, are as oblivious to national boundaries as are carbon emissions from the destruction of tropical forests. It is a shortsighted and unworkable approach to global problems that affect the American people directly. In defense of his proposal to rescind $1.3 billion from the State Department, Senator Coburn cites more than $13 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction that has been wasted, stolen, or lost. I see my good friend from Oklahoma on the floor. I say in that regard, there is no doubt there was deplorable waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer funds by contractors, such as Halliburton, that received no-bid, sweetheart contracts under the last Republican administration. It was probably the most poorly implemented nation-building program in history. At that time, the Republican Congress rubber-stamped those funds that were wasted--probably not wasted if you were a shareholder of Halliburton; you thought it was a good idea because they walked off with so much of it. The White House even opposed efforts by some of us, including Republicans, to create the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that discovered the misuse of funds. I also remind everybody that it was the Republican Congress, with a Republican President, that inherited the largest surplus in America's history, created by a Democratic administration, that of President Clinton's, that left a surplus that was paying down the national debt, left a huge surplus to the incoming Republican President. The Republican Congress not only voted to use that surplus to pay for an unnecessary war in Iraq but even cut taxes when we were fighting what ended up being two wars. It is the only time in our Nation's history we have done that--spend the surplus, cut taxes, and somehow these wars that have been going on now for 8 years would pay for themselves. I think to use the last Republican administration's waste of taxpayer dollars in Iraq as a rationale to rescind funds today that have bipartisan support for the security of our embassies and our diplomats overseas and for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Middle East, Indonesia, Mexico, Central Asia, Israel, and Egypt, where the threats to U.S. national security interests are beyond dispute, would be foolhardy. Every one of us should agree that not every Federal program deserves to be funded and certainly not because it was funded in the past. I have voted to cut programs in the Appropriations Committee and on this floor because they have gone beyond their useful life span or were ineffective. Some programs are effective. Those that are not should be eliminated. But the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, with leadership between myself and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--we spent the better part of last year making difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. The Appropriations Committee approved those choices, Republicans and Democrats, all 29 members, with one dissenting vote, and that was on another issue involving abortion. This amendment would cut funding to combat HIV, TB. Countries receive help from us, from Colombia, to Israel, to Egypt, to Mexico. The Senator from Oklahoma, with one strike of the pen, would arbitrarily slash 5 percent of that funding. Should we look for places where we can save money, where programs are not meeting their goals? Of course. But to do it this way, willy-nilly, picking a percentage out of the air with no concern for the consequences, does not protect the security of the American people. There is another section of the amendment about which I would like to speak. Section 5 of the amendment directs the Secretary of Education to work with the Secretaries of other relevant agencies to consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the student foreign exchange and international education programs. These exchanges are some of the most strongly supported programs by both Democrats and Republicans in the foreign aid budget. This amendment takes aim at the Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship Program, as well as several Department of Education international education and research programs, some of which are administered by the State Department, and a National Science Foundation program. The Benjamin Gilman Program, created by Congress, provides scholarships to American undergraduates to study abroad, including students in nontraditional destinations, or to study critical languages, such as Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Our military, and our intelligence agencies, say there is an unmet need for Americans who can speak these languages. Senator Coburn would cut funding for it. The Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program provides funding for foreign language study at U.S. universities, and several of these programs focus on strengthening study in international business and education, at a time when we are becoming more and more aware we cannot compete just within our borders. Our businesses have to be able to compete with other countries around the world or we lose jobs in America. We should be strengthening our study of international business and education, not cutting these programs. The amendment would cut other successful exchanges, such as the Fulbright-Hayes programs for teachers, high school students, graduate students, and business professionals. These exchanges bring foreigners with a range of economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the United States and they send Americans overseas. At a time when America should be reaching out around the world for our security, for our businesses, we should not be cutting these programs which have been woefully underfunded as both Republicans and Democrats have pointed out. The Institute for International Education is one example of an organization that effectively administers these programs. It provides citizens of other countries with a chance to learn firsthand about American culture, our values, our government, and our way of life. These are among the most effective ways of countering the misrepresentation and false stereotypes about the United States that we see perpetrated by extremists. Some of these programs and their predecessors I saw during the Cold War period. I remember one of the early meetings I had, along with several others, with President Ronald Reagan. He had spoken about the evil empire, and he said: What would you suggest we do? Of the suggestions that several of us made, I said this: Why don't you visit the Soviet Union and invite their leader to come to the United States next year and visit here? He said: Why? I said: Because you really don't know much about them. I pressed him a little on that, but he heard me out, and I said: But they do not know much about you either, and it would force them to learn about you and your staff, and it would force us to learn about them and their staff. Later, in his second term, President Reagan told me that was some of the best advice he ever got. We know how triumphant his visit was to the Soviet Union and how triumphant it was when Mr. Gorbachev came here, and the two of them learned about each other and worked together to lower the threat of nuclear war. That is just one example.

Mr. LEAHY. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look over the last 10 years, there have been significant shortfalls in many of these programs, and in personnel. The increases began first at the request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these programs for our own security. My response would be: Where do we make cuts? Your amendment does not say. Do we start with individual countries--Israel, Egypt, and so on? Do we start with programs to combat HIV, or malaria, or programs to eliminate childhood diseases in Africa? These exchanges enable Americans and foreigners to conduct scientific research to increase understanding and cooperation. Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, it would be considerably more than it was. Senator Gregg and I stayed within our allocation. Also, I think it was the only appropriations subcommittee that reported a bill with no earmarks. If there are ways of consolidating to reduce some administrative costs without harming the effectiveness or reducing opportunities to participate in these exchange programs, I am for it. But rather than by amendment to the debt ceiling bill, rather than giving carte blanche to the administration--or any administration--let's consider this in the normal appropriations process in a deliberative way. Mr. President, we actually work hard on these bills. We make difficult choices. Some things get funded, others do not. We vote up or down. We have to stay within our budget, and we did, and we did it without earmarks. So I believe the amendment should be rejected. It sounds nice we should just eliminate $2 billion in waste. Who would not want that? Let us be specific. Let us make the hard choices and say where the cuts are going to come from. The Senator's amendment does not do that. I recall a Republican President who gave great speeches about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and then during his administration tripled the national debt. I have heard great speeches by people who have voted to cut taxes during two wars, by people who instead of using the surplus left by the last Democratic President squandered it in a year's time. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the Senate floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have all watched the widespread devastation and loss of life in Haiti caused by last Tuesday's earthquake. It is a tragedy on a scale that words cannot adequately describe. I have talked with a number of people who have been down there. No matter how horrific the photographs we have seen, in reality it is even worse. Haiti is the hemisphere's poorest country, a history of repeated calamities, some, of course, caused by natural disasters, but some by past corrupt and abusive governments. Now it faces a humanitarian emergency, but also reconstruction needs of daunting proportions: 3 million people affected, hundreds of thousands left homeless, and an estimated 100,000--perhaps twice that many--lives lost, countless children injured and many orphaned. The Haitian Government, which already has limited capacity, has been severely damaged. The U.N. mission in Haiti, which is doing heroic work, suffered catastrophic losses. Americans and people around the world have reacted with compassion and generosity. A massive relief effort is underway. Search and rescue teams from the United States and other countries continue to pull survivors from the rubble more than a week after the buildings collapsed. The U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Departments of State and Defense, and many other Federal agencies have personnel on the ground. Our military sent ships and planes and troops. We have responded as America does. We are, after all, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth. Morality requires us to help those, especially neighbors, so severely damaged. I have visited Haiti as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and each year I have worked to increase United States assistance for Haiti. I can tell you, this earthquake could not have come at a worse time. There was hope that Haiti, after recovering from three severe hurricanes in 2008 which left most of the country's infrastructure damaged or destroyed, was poised to finally make some real strides toward political stability and economic development. All of us who care for Haiti thought finally things were getting better. Last Tuesday, in a few terrifying minutes, that hope was buried in rubble. The immediate focus, of course, is saving lives, helping those people who have no place to live and no way to support themselves. I do thank the many humanitarian relief organizations as well as the United Nations, OAS, the Pan-American Health Organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross, other international organizations, and other countries that have sent relief workers to help. They mobilized quickly. We have seen their doctors, nurses and other relief personnel working day and night since shortly after the earthquake hit. They are doing an outstanding job under the worst possible conditions. I want to express my condolences to the Haitian people, and my admiration for them. They have shown remarkable fortitude and patience in the wake of this catastrophe. Even in the midst of so much misery, there are already glimpses of a recovery. Some press reports have focused on incidents of looting, and crowds of people surrounding UN vehicles or scrambling for whatever food or water they can find. But in fact those incidents have been the exception. The vast majority of the survivors, in the midst of a destroyed city with little food, water or shelter, have refrained from violence and instead tried to help each other. To the families of others who died or suffered severe injuries, particularly American citizens who were in Haiti, several of whom were Vermonters or who had relatives in Vermont and who lost their lives when the buildings collapsed, our hearts go out to them. How much we wish we could turn the clock back and bring them home. A great deal is being done to alleviate the suffering, but I also think there are important lessons from this experience that will enable us to respond even more quickly and more effectively when the next disaster strikes. It is more than a week after the earthquake struck and many people left homeless have yet to receive food or water and they have no shelter. The Central America-Caribbean region is among the most disaster prone in the world due to the many volcanoes, earthquake fault lines and tropical storms. There are things we can do to be better prepared and to deliver aid more efficiently next time. This is in no way to detract from the heroic efforts of those not only from the United States but from nongovernmental organizations and from other countries who have worked against almost insurmountable odds to get aid to those who need it. I am concerned with reports that some humanitarian organizations have been unable to obtain access to the Port-au-Prince airport for several days. Many tons of relief supplies have reportedly been flown instead to the Dominican Republic and then trucked by land to Port-au-Prince, which is not only expensive but time-consuming, and they are needed now. If you are a child, dehydrated and dying, and food and water are only a few miles away, or you are a parent to that child, you cannot wait. The outpouring of generosity by Americans of all ages to the people of Haiti has been extraordinary. Millions of dollars have been donated. There have been far more offers to volunteer than the relief organizations can accommodate. I am very proud of the many Vermonters, from nurses to elementary school students, who have sent money or gone to Haiti to help. While Haiti has suffered this devastating blow, our ties to Haiti and the Haitian people are stronger than ever. We will not only help the Haitian people through this crisis, we will work with them to transform this disaster into an opportunity to rebuild their country better than it was before. That is what the State, Foreign Operations subcommittee will seek to do when we look at the next budget request for Haiti. We will ask: How can we make it better? How can we make them better prepared if disaster strikes again? How can we help the people of Haiti who want and deserve a better life? That is showing a sense of morality. As Americans, that is what we should do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the end of this month, the dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, will resign his post to accept the highly distinguished appointment of United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. I have come to know Dean Aleinikoff well in the 5 years he has served as the dean at my law school alma mater. I am very proud of the dean's appointment and look forward to working with him in his new position. Dean Aleinikoff has devoted his entire professional career to public service on behalf of refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants. After graduating from Yale Law School and serving as a clerk to the Honorable Edward Weinfeld, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York, Dean Aleinikoff served as an attorney advisor in the Department of Justice and later as General Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs to the Immigration and Nationality Service. Dean Aleinikoff devoted years to teaching refugee and immigration law, both at the University of Michigan and at Georgetown University Law Center, where he was appointed dean in 2004. He also served as the cochair of the Immigration Policy Review Team for President Barack Obama's transition in late 2008 and early 2009. With 34 million refugees and internally displaced persons of concern to the Office of the High Commissioner, Dean Aleinikoff's expertise and management skills will be required on a daily basis. I have long fought to expand the relief available to refugees around the world and to asylum seekers who turn to the United States for protection. I know that we share these goals, and I am confident that Dean Aleinikoff will ably rise to the challenges he will face, however daunting they may be. I have worked closely with Dean Aleinikoff on a variety of issues throughout his tenure as dean and greatly admire his intellect and commitment to justice. The quality of the Georgetown legal education is extraordinary, and the institution's role as a national leader in law and policy has never been more prominent. As a graduate of the law school, I am sorry to see Dean Aleinikoff depart, but his work on behalf of refugees could not be more important or more timely. I thank Dean Aleinikoff for his extraordinary leadership of the Georgetown University Law Center and wish him great success in this challenging but critically important new role.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we return for the second session of the 111th Congress, the Senate at last considers the long-stalled nomination of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Even though Judge Martin is a well-respected district court judge with the strong support of both of her home State Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, her nomination has been stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar for over 4 months since it was promptly reported by the Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. The delays for consideration of the nomination of Judge Martin, along with delays for seven other judicial nominations currently on the Senate's Executive Calendar, are the result of a Republican strategy to stall, delay, and obstruct that began last year. I urge the Senate Republican leadership to reconsider their strategy and instead join with us and with President Obama to fill the more than 100 vacancies that have now accumulated on our Federal courts around the country. The obstructionist tactics that we saw last year from Republicans led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed all last year. The 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees confirmed last year was less than half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. In the second half of 2001, a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to confirm 28 judges. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. Republicans have refused to agree to the consideration of qualified, noncontroversial nominees for weeks and months. Last December, only 3 of the available 13 judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar were considered. By contrast, in December 2001, the first year of President Bush's administration, Senate Democrats proceeded to confirm 10 of his judicial nominees. At the end of the Senate's 2001 session, only four judicial nominations were left on the Senate Executive Calendar, all of which were confirmed soon after the Senate returned in 2002. At the end of President Clinton's first year, just one judicial nominee was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. At the end of President George H.W. Bush's first year, a Democratic Senate majority left just two judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar.At the end of the first year of President Reagan's first term--a year in which the Senate confirmed 41 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--not a single judicial nomination was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. This past December, Senate Republicans left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action and insisted on returning 2 of them to the President so that they would have to be renominated. None of the eight judicial nominations currently pending on the Executive Calendar are controversial. Six were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were finally allowed to be considered. Judicial vacancies have now skyrocketed to over 100, undoing years of hard work. The lack of Senate action last year is attributable to Senate Republicans and no one else. President Obama has reached across the aisle to consult with Republican Senators. The nomination before the Senate today is another example of that. He has made quality nominations. While President Obama has moved beyond the judicial nominations battles of the past and reached out to work with Republicans and make mainstream nominations, Senate Republicans continue their tactics of delay. When President Bush worked with Senators across the aisle, I praised him and expedited consideration of his nominees. When President Obama reaches across the aisle, the Senate Republican leadership delays and obstructs his qualified nominees. The Republican leadership has returned to their practices in the 1990s, which resulted in more than doubling circuit court vacancies, and led to the pocket filibuster of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. The crisis they created eventually led even to public criticism of their actions by Chief Justice Rehnquist during those years. Instead of praising President Obama for consulting with Republican Senators, the Senate Republican leadership has doubled back on what they demanded when a Republican President was in the White House. No more do they talk about each nominee being entitled to an up-or-down vote. That position is abandoned and forgotten. Instead, they now seek to filibuster and delay judicial and even executive nominations. They have also abandoned their initial position at the start of this Congress that they would filibuster judicial nominees on which home State Senators were not consulted. It turned out such consultation and home State Republican Senator support did not matter when they unsuccessfully filibustered President Obama's first judicial nominee, Judge David Hamilton. He was filibustered despite the support of Senator Lugar, his home State Senator and the longest serving Republican in the Senate. Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in his first year of a Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed confirmation in the 1996 session. This is wrong. The American people deserve better. The cost will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. During President Bush's last year in office, we had 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. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges. We have seen this unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. 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 any delaying tactic they can. These obstruction tactics took dangerous lows last year when Senate Republicans voted to leave our troops without funding at a time when we are fighting two wars. Had the Senate Republican filibuster of the Defense Department appropriations bill been successful, they would have cut off funding for our troops in the field. Senate Republicans also filibustered the veterans bill. Judge Martin's nomination is the longest pending of the judicial nominees currently on the Executive Calendar. Judge Martin is a well- respected Federal district court judge. Her nomination received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and has the support of both Republican home State Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. Judge Martin has spent 25 years in public service as a Federal judge, as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, as an Assistant U.S. attorney in that office, and as an assistant attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia. Judge Martin's nomination should have been an easy one to have confirmed months ago. Republicans should have thanked President Obama for consulting with the home State Republican Senators and moved forward. I wish we could have reached a time agreement sooner. It should not have taken 4 months. I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and allow prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration: Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey, nominated to the Third Circuit; Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; 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; Rosanna Malouf Peterson, nominated to the Eastern District of Washington; and William Conley, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, an extraordinarily valuable member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

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