Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. That was going to be my first unanimous consent request. My second one would be I ask consent that I be recognized following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have received a request that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, wishes to be recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have an ongoing debate on the whole question of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Since the beginning of this debate, I have opposed legislation that does not provide some kind of accountability for the 6 years of illegal warrantless wiretapping that was started and, in fact, approved by this administration. The bill that has been presented to the Senate, as it stands now, absent any amendments, seems intended to result in the dismissal of ongoing cases against the telecommunication carriers that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. It would lead to the dismissal of the cases without allowing a court ever to review whether the program itself was legal. So the bill would have the effect of ensuring that this administration, the administration that decided to carry out the illegal wiretapping, is never called to answer for its actions, and never held accountable in a court of law. I cannot support that result. It is now almost 7 years since the President began an effort to circumvent the law in violation of the provisions of the governing statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I have said I believe that the conduct was illegal. In running its program of warrantless surveillance, the administration relied on result-oriented legal opinions. These opinions were prepared in secret. They were shown only to a tiny group of like-minded officials. This ensured, of course, that the administration received not independent legal advice, but the legal advice that it had predetermined it wanted. A former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel described this program as a ``legal mess.'' And this administration wants to make sure no court ever reviews this legal mess. The bill presented to the Senate seems designed to ensure that they are going to get their wish. The administration worked very hard to ensure that Congress could not effectively review the program or the basis for its arguments for immunity. Since the existence of the program became known through the press, the Judiciary Committee has repeatedly tried to obtain access to information its members needed so we could evaluate the administration's legal arguments, which are squarely under the jurisdiction of our committee. Indeed, Senator Specter, when he was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, prepared subpoenas to telecommunication carriers to obtain this information. He wanted information from the telecommunications carriers because the administration would not tell us directly what it had done. But those subpoenas sought by a Republican chairman were never issued. As Senator Specter himself has explained publicly, Vice President Cheney intervened with other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee to undercut Senator Specter, and, of course, the Vice President then succeeded in blocking the subpoenas. It was only just before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees' consideration of this bill that the Judiciary Committee members finally obtained access to some of the documents we had sought. I remind you, though, that most Members of this Chamber, most Senators called upon to vote, have not seen those documents. I have seen them, and I would hope that they would be made available to every Senator. The Senators who have seen them have drawn very different conclusions. But no matter what conclusion you reach, you ought to get access to the documents so that you can make an informed judgment. I will not discuss the documents that are still held in secret, but I will talk about the public reports. There are public reports that at least one telecommunications carrier refused to comply with the administration's request to cooperate with the warrantless wiretapping. All Senators should have had the opportunity to know those facts so they can make informed judgments whether there were legal claims that other carriers should have raised. It is also clear that the Bush-Cheney administration did not want the Senate to evaluate the evidence and be able to draw its own conclusions. They wanted to avoid accountability. Indeed, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with all of the work it has done on this issue, has not conducted a review of the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. Now, I am not here to try to get the telephone companies. According to public reports, at least one company said no, presumably because it feared that by complying it would break the law. Other phone companies, according to the public statements, apparently believed they were doing what was best for their country. I am not out to get them. In fact, I would have supported legislation to have the Government indemnify the telecommunications carriers for any liability incurred at the behest of the Government. As I said, it is not a case of going after the phone companies; I want accountability. I supported alternative efforts by Senator Specter and Senator Whitehouse to substitute the Government for the defendants in these cases. In other words, take the phone companies out and substitute the Government so the cases can proceed to a determination on the merits. These alternatives would have allowed judicial review of the legality of the administration's acts--I think it is clear that the administration's actions were illegal--then let a court determine who was responsible for those actions. This bill does not provide that accountability. As I read the language of the bill, it is designed to have the courts dismiss the pending cases if the Attorney General simply certifies to the court that the alleged activity was the subject of a written request from the Attorney General, and that request indicated the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. In other words, if the Attorney General said: Well, I do not care what the law says, I have determined that the President does not have to follow the law. If the Attorney General says, in effect, notwithstanding the rule of law in this country, this President is above the law, so, therefore, nothing he does is illegal. These kinds of baseless legal conclusions could form the basis for immunity under this scheme. That is really what this bill provides. That concerns me, as it should concern everybody. We should not be dismissing Americans' claims that their fundamental rights were violated based on the mere assertion of a party in interest that what it did was lawful. Think about it: this would be like a police officer catching someone committing a burglary and saying: I am going to arrest you for burglary. And the burglar sitting there with a bag of burglary tools, having broken in the door, saying: You cannot do that because I thought about this breaking and entering. I decided that in my case it is not illegal. And then the police officer has to say: Gee, I am sorry for the inconvenience, sir, go on your merry way. That is what we are saying. Or actually, it is even worse than that. It is as if they actually arrested that burglar, they brought him into court, and the burglar stands up and says: Your Honor, I determined all by myself--disregarding you, Your Honor; disregarding the evidence, I determined all by myself--that even though I was involved in a burglary, I should not even be subject to the court's jurisdiction because I say that what I did was legal. Goodbye, Your Honor. Have a nice day. I am leaving. That is what we are doing with this bill. In fact, there is not even a determination by the current Attorney General that the wireless wiretapping program was lawful, perhaps because he could not make such a determination. But all he has to do to ensure immunity is to certify that the phone company acted at the behest of the administration and that the administration indicated that the activity was determined to be lawful. Regardless of whether or not it actually was lawful, all the Attorney General has to say is that it was determined to be lawful. We are not going to tell you when that determination was made. We are not even going to tell you whether the people who made that determination went to law school. It is lawful because the President is above the law; therefore, we are off the hook. I believe the rule of law is important. I do not believe any one of us, the 100 of us in this body, is above the law. I have been here with six Presidents. I do not believe any one of them, Republican or Democratic Presidents, is above the law. I do not believe Congress should try to put a President above the law and seek to take away the only viable avenue for Americans to seek redress for harm to their privacy and liberty, and the only viable avenue of accountability for the administration's lawlessness. Why should we, the United States Senate, the conscience of the Nation, why should we sit here and say: We are going to condone lawlessness, and even more importantly, we 100 people, acting on behalf of 300 million other Americans, are saying: We are never even going to let you know who committed the unlawful acts and why. Now, I recognize this legislation also contains important surveillance authority. I support this new authority. I worked for years to craft legislation that provides that important authority along with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. I have voted for dozens of changes in the FISA legislation to be able to help our intelligence agencies. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under my leadership, reported such a bill last fall. So I commend House Majority Leader Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller, who negotiated this legislation, for incorporating several additional protections to bring it closer to the bill we voted out of the Judiciary Committee. I note, in particular, the requirement of an inspector general review of this administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It is a provision I have advocated at every single meeting we have had, open or closed, through the course of the consideration of these matters. This review will provide for a comprehensive examination of the relevant facts about this program. Actually, it should prove useful to the next President. I believe we should have still more protections for privacy and civil liberties. If this bill becomes law I will work with the next administration on additional protections. Despite some improvements to the surveillance authorities the bill authorizes, improvements I support, I will not support this legislation. The administration broke the law. They violated FISA by conducting warrantless surveillance for more than 5 years, and they got caught. Now they want us to cover their actions. They want us to say: That's OK. Even though we don't know which one of you decided to break the law, we are going to let you all off the hook. The apparent purpose of title II of this bill is to ensure that they will not be held to account. That is wrong. I will, therefore, oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure. If the Senate proceeds to the bill, I will then support amendments to its unaccountability provisions, including an amendment to strike the immunity provisions. But if those are not successful, I will have to vote against it. The bottom line is this: In America, nobody should be above the law. One thing unites every single Senator. We want to keep our great and good country safe. We all want to stop terrorists. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to do that. We have procedures to do that. But one of the principles of this country and something we have always preached to other countries is, that in good times and bad times, we follow the law. We did this during two world wars, in the Revolutionary War and in the Civil War. I am imploring the Senate not to turn its back on over 200 years of history of following the law and saying, in this situation, we are going to condone an administration that broke the law. I cannot vote for that. I cannot in good conscience vote for that. I cannot be true to my own oath of office and vote for that. Certainly, I would not want to tell the people of Vermont I voted for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 4, our Nation will celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. While we mark this important anniversary, the country also celebrates the enactment earlier this year of the first major reforms to FOIA in over a decade--the OPEN Government Act--which will reinvigorate and strengthen this vital open government law for many years to come. Now in its fourth decade, the Freedom of Information Act remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on bad policies and Government abuses. The act has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act, which was signed into law on December 31, Americans who seek information under FIOA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays than it has been in the past. This is very good news. But there is still much more to be done to ensure that FOIA remains an effective tool for keeping our democracy open and free. A key component of the OPEN Government Act is the creation of an Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, within the National Archives and Records Administration. The office would mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. Establishing a fully funded OGIS is essential to reversing the troubling trend of the last 7 years towards lax FOIA compliance and excessive Government secrecy. I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies--a panel on which I serve--last week rejected the President's budget proposal to move the functions of OGIS to the Department of Justice. I will continue to work very hard to ensure that OGIS is fully funded within the National Archives--as Congress intended--so that this important office has the necessary resources to fully comply with the OPEN Government Act. There is also more work to be done to further strengthen FOIA. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join with Senator John Cornyn in introducing the OPEN FOIA Act, S. 2746, a bill that requires Congress to clearly and explicitly state its intention to create a statutory exemption to FOIA when it provides for such an exemption in new legislation. While there is a very real need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good and safety, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy. The OPEN FOIA Act provides a safeguard against the growing trend towards FOIA exemptions, and would make all FOIA exemptions clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated, before they are enacted into law. The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this bill at its business meeting this week, and I urge all members to support this legislation to further restore the public's trust in their Government. As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to open and transparent government. As I have said many times, open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American value and a virtue that all Americans hold dear. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 42nd anniversary of the birth of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield myself such time as I may need in the time allotted to the Senator from Vermont. Today, the Senate is turning to a package of three nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench in Michigan, including President Bush's nominations of Judge Helene White and Raymond Kethledge to fill the final two vacancies of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These nominations are the result of the hard work of Senators Levin and Stabenow, who consulted with President Bush to end a decade-long impasse in filling vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. During that time, Senate Republicans had blocked President Clinton's nominees to that circuit, leaving open four vacancies. I am worried that some on the other side seem intent on preventing us from making this progress. Judge White's nomination should be a consensus nomination. Judge White was nominated by a Democratic President and by a Republican President. When the most partisan President in modern history, one responsible for sending us so many divisive nominations, renominates a Clinton judicial nominee, it actually should send a signal. Nevertheless, her nomination drew criticism from the Republican leader and opposition from Republicans on our committee. After I expedited a hearing on the Michigan nominees, figuring that 10 years of waiting might have been enough, Republicans objected that we were moving too fast. They peppered her with more questions than any nominee of President Bush that I can recall. At our committee markup, Republicans made the wildly dumbfounding claims that she is not experienced. But after more than 25 years as a Michigan State court judge, including 15 as a State appellate court judge, she is a more experienced judicial nominee than many of those they previously supported. It is interesting that Republicans did not raise this concern when they were supporting far less experienced nominees such as Jennifer Elrod and Catharina Haynes of Texas to fill circuit court vacancies. In fact, Judge White has been on the appellate bench longer than Mr. Kethledge, the other Sixth Circuit nominee, has been out of law school. It is ironic that last week several Republican Senators held a press conference with representatives from right wing groups organized by a group calling itself Concerned Women for America. It is Republican opposition to a woman nominee that has been holding up the progress of filling judicial vacancies. Now this woman nominee they seemed concerned about is described on President Bush's White House Web site as ``an experienced and highly qualified judge, who is known for her intellect, work ethic, and demeanor.'' She has been given the highest rating for the position by the ABA. Yet her extensive experience, which is far more than the experience of many supported by my friends on the other side of the aisle, does not seem to meet the sudden last-minute standards set by Republican members of the committee. As a state judge, she has not been called upon to consider and apply certain Federal statutes. That would be the same with thousands of state judges all over the country. It is understandable. But if you characterize her because of that as unqualified, that would turn back the clock to before the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been a State legislator and a State judge. Justice O'Connor was not experienced in deciding Federal law issues before confirmation as the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we should all agree she nonetheless served the Nation well in that capacity. And I agreed with her chief sponsor in this body, my friend and former colleague, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, and I was proud to join with him in voting for Sandra Day O'Connor. It is also ironic that week after week, as the Senate continues to make progress in filling judicial vacancies, we hear a steady stream of grumbling from Republicans whose main priorities now seem to be to prevent the Senate and the Judiciary Committee from addressing the priorities of ordinary Americans. You would almost think that gasoline has not skyrocketed as the dollar has collapsed in value worldwide because of the huge debt caused by the Iraq war. They do not seem to realize that some of the typical Americans in my State of Vermont and, I suspect, the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey, are finding it very hard to buy gas to go to work or pick up their children after school or do their grocery shopping or visit an ailing parent. You would not think these were important matters when you hear of the priorities on the other side. You would not be aware there is a huge crisis in the housing industry, where people are losing houses all over this country, hard-working Americans who finally had the American dream of owning their own home and are now losing it. You would think that was not happening by what we hear from the other side. Republicans are now regularly objecting to hearings before the Judiciary Committee. They seem disappointed when we conclude hearings within the first 2 hours of the Senate's day and they cannot disrupt them. They objected to Senator Feinstein completing an important hearing on interrogation techniques used against detainees. It is almost as if, if we can block that hearing from happening, these terrible things never would have happened because Republicans foreclosed the ability of Americans to hear what went on in those hearings. They objected to a hearing highlighting the impact of Supreme Court decisions on the daily lives of all Americans even though that meant cutting short the testimony of two brave women victimized by such a decision, Pennsylvanians who came to Washington to tell how badly they had been hurt by these decisions. The Republicans effectively silenced them to make sure they could not speak and could not testify because they said we should not have these Judiciary Committee meetings. So these two Pennsylvanians had to go back home unable to finish telling their story. And a few days ago, the Republican minority objected to a hearing that had been requested by Judiciary Committee Republicans to examine the need for additional Federal judgeships throughout the country. This now all too familiar pattern is childish and serves no good purpose. We will see later this week whether they allow Senator Biden to proceed to chair a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs concerning fugitives from justice. Regrettably, these obstructionist tactics from the other side of the aisle are likely to continue without regard to the real priorities of the struggling Americans I spoke about, the voters who have elected every Senator to serve. Their priorities are being pushed aside. We read last week another story about the dissatisfaction of right wing activists and their pressuring of the Republican leadership in the Senate. We witnessed their response this month as they forced a reading of a substitute amendment to critical climate change legislation. They did this for hours and hours, thereby shutting down the work of the Senate. Two weeks ago, we saw a story in Roll Call that included the headline ``Divided GOP Settles on a Fight Over Judges.'' That headline reminded me of the famous Wolfowitz quote about why the Bush administration settled on supposed weapons of mass destruction as the justification for attacking Iraq even though they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction--it was the rationale they could agree on. They all knew they wanted to attack Iraq, they knew they did not have the facts to attack Iraq, so they found a cover story they could use. And thousands of lives and $1 trillion later they say: Oops, sorry, no weapons of mass destruction, but, boy, we all agreed on the rationale. The report in Roll Call included discussion by Republican Senators of the politics that fuels their efforts to appeal to ``conservative activists'' and ``ignite base voters'' and find an issue that ``serves as a rare unifier for Senate Republicans'' and their Presidential nominee. That piece mirrored an earlier article in the Washington Times, reporting how this is all part of an effort to bolster Senator McCain's standing among conservatives. This political song-and-dance would not be so bad if it were not impacting the integrity and the independence of the Federal judiciary, something that in the past both Republicans and Democrats tried to protect. I had suspected that much of this complaining was because Republican partisans were looking for an issue to energize their political base during an election year. The reports from the media outlets have confirmed my suspicions. I wonder if they realize that liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats are suffering from having to pay these outrageous gas prices. Wouldn't it be better if they worked on that? Americans, Republicans and Democrats, in all parts of this country, are seeing their houses disappear and the value they had hoped for their retirement gone. Wouldn't addressing that be something better on which to unite America? On this date in the 1996 session, another Presidential election year but one in which a Republican Senate majority was considering judicial nominees of a Democratic President, do you know how many judicial nominees had been confirmed? The answer is easy: None, not a single one. That was a session that ended without a single circuit court judge being confirmed. By contrast, if Republicans will allow the confirmation of Judge White to the Sixth Circuit, we will have today completed the confirmations for 12 judges, including 4 circuit court judges, so far this Presidential election year, compared to 1996, when none had been confirmed at this point. In addition to today's three nominees, two more judicial nominees already reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee are pending on the Senate's executive calendar. I have placed four more on the Judiciary Committee business agenda for later this week. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that here, as the Democratic leadership of the Senate takes the extraordinary step of proceeding to two more of President Bush's circuit court nominees in June of a Presidential election year, I am being criticized by Republicans for, of all things, moving too quickly. I had hoped, in light of the discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader earlier this spring, to have concluded Senate action on this package of Michigan nominees more quickly. I tried to have these votes in May before the Memorial Day recess, but we were thwarted in that effort by Republican concerns about expediting consideration of these Bush nominees. So what we might have done in May, we are now having to do in June. It reminds me a little bit of the Republican antics and shenanigans earlier this year that cost us progress in February. Rather than making progress, Republicans refused to make a quorum in the Judiciary Committee that entire month so no judicial nominees would come out in March, and then in March, they could give speeches. So let there be no mistake. If Judge White is confirmed, we will have broken a 10-year impasse on the Sixth Circuit. By contrast, the Republican Senate majority during the Clinton years refused to consider President Clinton's Sixth Circuit nominees for 3 years and left four vacancies on that court. When, as chairman, I scheduled a hearing and vote for Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of Tennessee and Judge John Marshall Rogers of Kentucky, we were able to confirm the first new judges to the Sixth Circuit in 5 years. The others had been pocket-filibustered by Republicans. I said we would not do the same thing to them, and we did not. We moved quickly on President Bush's nominees to that circuit. The confirmations of Judge White and Mr. Kethledge of Michigan would complete the process by filling the two remaining vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. Judge White was first nominated by President Clinton to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit more than 11 years ago, but the Republican-led Senate refused to act on her nomination. She waited in vain for 1,454 days for a hearing before President Bush withdrew her nomination in March 2001. Hers was 1 of more than 60 qualified judicial nominees pocket- filibustered by Republicans. This year, President Bush reconsidered and renominated her, and I applaud President Bush for doing so. He deserves credit for trying to close the door on a sorry chapter. I commend the President for doing it and for what he has said on his White House Web site about Judge White's nomination. I hope the Senate will follow the example of President Bush and confirm Judge White to one of the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. The Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit have proven a great challenge. I commend the senior Senator from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and his outstanding colleague, Senator Stabenow, for working to end years of impasse. I had urged the President to work with the Michigan Senators. After 7 years, he now has. We have come a long way since I became chairman in 2001 when the Sixth Circuit was in turmoil because Republicans had blocked nominations for many years. Today we complete that progress by confirming Judge White and Raymond Kethledge. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time. How much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield without losing the floor?

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Am I correct that we are now on a judicial nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. Is there a time agreement?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator said. I hope people understand who are listening. I know the two Senators from Michigan are going to speak very briefly. But if we wrapped up the comments in, say, the next 15, 20 minutes, we could then go to a rollcall vote on Helene White. I would agree, then, to a voice vote on the other two judges, provided the ranking member had no objection to that, which would probably bring about a huge sigh of relief from Senators on both sides of the aisle that we would not be stuck here with three votes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, when the Senator from Pennsylvania is finished, I know Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow wished to speak very briefly. If that was the case, I hope that maybe within the next 10 minutes or so, or that by 6:30, or at 6:30, that perhaps what we can do is this: Let's say at 6:30, if the Senator from Pennsylvania would agree that we might vote at 6:30, then under the previous unanimous consent, if Judge White is confirmed, assuming she is, but if she is under the unanimous consent, then the regular order would be to go to the other two nominees from Michigan. It would be my intent--unless somebody objected--it would be my intent to do those by voice vote. That, of course, is contingent upon her being confirmed under the unanimous consent agreement that I have been shown. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had hoped that before the Senate we not would hear unfair criticism leveled at Judge White. Last month, Senator Brownback publicly apologized for his actions at her confirmation hearing, and I commended him for doing so. After Judge White answered the scores of time-consuming questions Republicans sent to her and the committee had received the updated ABA ratings emphasized so much by Republicans in connection with these nominations, I hoped we could move forward with this in a consensus fashion. It is disappointing that some still seem bent on grasping at straws to criticize Judge White, applying a different standard from that which they used to evaluate other Bush judicial nominees. Judge Helene White has served on the Michigan Court of Appeals for the past 15 years, having been elected by the people of Michigan in 1992. Before that she served for a dozen years on the Wayne County Circuit Court, the Common Pleas Court for the city of Detroit, and the 36th District Court of Michigan. She is described on the Bush White House Web site as ``an experienced and highly qualified judge, who is known for her intellect, work ethic, and demeanor.'' Judge White has been now been nominated by Presidents from both parties, by a Democratic President and by a Republic President. She has served as a Michigan State court judge for more than 25 years. In addition, she has been active as a member of the legal community and of community organizations including COTS, Coalition on Temporary Shelter; JVS, Jewish Vocational Services; and the Metropolitan Detroit Young Women's Christian Association. She should be a consensus confirmation. Oddly, Republican attacks on Judge White have focused on what they term a lack of experience. Somehow, someone who has been a respected appellate judge for 15 years, who has served as a judge for well over 25 years, and who the ABA rates as well qualified for the Federal circuit court , is in their view not ``experienced'' enough to be a Federal appellate court judge. Some Senators suggested that her lack of experience with specific Federal issues that never come before even the most experienced State judge was a problem. They ignore the fact that judges always have to learn new areas of the law as new cases come before them, and no one is better prepared to do that than an experienced jurist like Judge White. Indeed, Mr. Kethledge, President Bush's youthful nominee to the other vacancy on the Sixth Circuit, was gracious enough to concede at the hearing that he, too, lacked experience in the same specific areas of Federal law. Yet his qualifications have not been in called into question by Republican Senators. Judge White has served as a Michigan State appellate court judge longer than Mr. Kethledge has been out of law school, but some are questioning her experience while embracing his relatively lack of experience. With these criticisms, Republicans risk turning back the clock to before the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who herself had been a State legislator and State judge. Justice O'Connor was not experienced in deciding Federal law issues before her confirmation as the first female justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we can agree that she nonetheless served the Nation well in that capacity. Should we conclude from the Republic attacks that no State court judge can be confirmed to sit on a Federal court? Certainly Jennifer Elrod, a State court judge with far less experience than Judge White, who the Senate confirmed to the Fifth Circuit late last year, was not held to that standard by the Republicans. Indeed, recall what Senator Cornyn said about her nomination: ``I would point out that when it comes to experience, most of us, when we apply for a new job, or a nominee, have rarely done that job before. So the question is not whether you have actually done that job before, it's whether you are likely to do a good job, if confirmed.'' Others have pointed to a handful cases in which Judge White was on a panel decision that was reversed. This handful of cases comes from 4,300 cases she heard on the bench. These were cases in which Judge White joined a unanimous panel of her court or in one instance where she agreed with the rest of the court on the law and differed only on the facts. More to the point, they were cases of such limited precedential value that the decisions were not even published. When asked about each case, Judge White testified that she accepted the Michigan Supreme Court's decision as correct. I hope that in a long career spanning thousands of decisions, she will not be judged by a few unremarkable cases. Republicans have certainly asked us not to focus on a small handful of cases decided by other Bush nominees, even when the cases in question were far more noteworthy. Republicans have simply not been able to point to anything in Judge White's long and distinguished career that should disqualify her or even justify a negative vote. It is unfortunate that some Republicans seem to be trying so hard to find reasons not to support this particular nominee. I hope that Republican and Democratic Senators will join together to support her nomination and the entire package of Michigan nominations that President Bush has sent to us after consultation with Senators Levin and Stabenow. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. First, I commend the two Senators from Michigan, who spent years working out this conclusion for these three nominees to be here. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow for working so hard. Senator Cardin spent so much time at the hearing with me. I appreciate the amount of time he spent there. His words of calm reasoning, but with questions that cut right to the importance of the hearing, were extremely valuable. If nobody else is seeking recognition, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum in a moment. So that Senators will understand, at 6:30 I will call off the quorum, and the time will be yielded back on both sides. Then we will go to a rollcall vote on Helene White. If Judge White is confirmed, as I fully expect she will be, then we will go to the next two judges, but only if she is confirmed. Again, Senator Specter and I have both said we expect she will be. We will go to the next two judges, and I don't know of anyone who will require a rollcall vote on those two judges. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. I am authorized to yield back all time on both sides. I yield back all time on both sides.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of those who risked their lives in the pursuit of making America a more perfect union. This week, we commemorate the 44th anniversary of the day three brave civil rights workers--James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman--paid the ultimate price in the struggle to secure civil rights and expand our democracy for all Americans. On June 21, 1964, these three young men were abducted, brutally beaten, and shot to death by Ku Klux Klansmen for simply attempting to register African-Americans voters. Their deaths touched the conscience of our country and inspired events that changed the course of our history. The public outcry over the initial disappearance of these workers drew national and international attention to the violence associated with efforts to register African-American voters. It spurred efforts to desegregate the voting delegates at political party conventions. And it served as a catalyst for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, key legislation that would eliminate segregation and usher in a new era of equal opportunity and access to our democracy for all Americans. Unfortunately, our march toward equal justice under law is not yet complete. Three years ago, Edgar Ray Killen was convicted for the deaths of the three civil rights workers we honor today. Almost two dozen other men were involved in this crime; some are still alive, yet, none have ever been held charged with this murder. Even more troubling, the families of hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives in the fight for equal rights still await justice. As we pass this resolution, we must recognize that it is long past time to pass the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which would strengthen our ability to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed this bill. Yet, one lone Republican Senator has prevented this important bill from passing. As we commemorate the deaths of three of the most celebrated civil rights activists of the past, let us remember this does not obviate our need to solve the hundreds of less recognized civil rights crimes of that era. Today's resolution is an important gesture for us to remember the civil rights misdeeds of the past. But it is also an opportunity for Congress to show the country that we will not tolerate similar offenses. As we pass this resolution, it is fitting to carry this principle to the present and act in kind to prevent hate crimes and civil rights abuses occurring now in this country and around the world. The powerful inscription on the grave of James Chaney reads: ``There are those who are alive, yet will never live; there are those who are dead, yet will live forever; great deeds inspire and encourage the living.'' By remembering Mr. Chaney, Mr. Schwerner, and Mr. Goodman today, I hope we all can be inspired to renewed action in this Congress. Let us pass the Till bill to ensure that those who sacrificed their lives in pursuit of justice are not forgotten and the perpetrators of these crimes are held accountable.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, because of the lateness of the hour, I am willing to forgo a rollcall on this nominee and a voice vote will be sufficient.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished leader for helping us to get here.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am satisfied with a voice vote on this nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is my privilege today to salute Vermont radio personalities Steve Cormier and Tom Brennan, best known to Vermonters as the morning team ``Corm & the Coach'' on Champ 101.3. Sixteen years ago, University of Vermont basketball coach Tom Brennan made a guest radio appearance on Steve Cormier's radio show. The two of them hit it off, not only as a duo, but with listeners. What started as a guest spot ended up becoming an extremely popular morning radio show for 16 years. Recently, Coach Brennan decided to go out on top, as he did when he retired from the University of Vermont following three consecutive America East Conference championships. ``Corm & the Coach'' will air for the final time on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Fortunately for Vermonters, Corm will remain on the air, continuing to keep us both entertained and informed, and Coach Brennan will continue to provide expert college basketball analysis on ESPN. I have had the good fortune to appear on ``Corm & the Coach'' many times, and thought it important to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to both of them. In honor of a great 16 years of ``Corm & the Coach,'' I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press, Corm To Carry On, Without The Coach, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Col. Gregg Olson, USMC, who will complete his 2 year tour of duty with the United States Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs on June 24, 2008. I have had the pleasure to work with Colonel Olson on many occasions. In his role as the Director of the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office, he has provided superb support, acting as the principal conduit for information between the Marine Corps and many members of the Senate. His affable personality and attention to duty contributed to a highly successful relationship between the United States Senate and the United States Marine Corps. Though he will continue his service to the Marine Corps and the country, he will be sorely missed. A native of Rhode Island, Colonel Olson attended the United States Naval Academy, and received a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in 1985. His career as a Marine officer has been exemplary, serving with distinction in every post he has been assigned. Prior to his assignment to the United States Senate, he served two tours in Iraq, first as an Operations Officer to a Marine Expeditionary Unit in 2003, and then as a Battalion Commander in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. His battalion was involved in the Battle of Fallujah, which saw some of the most intense house-to-house fighting of the war. Many proud Marines under his command gave their lives in that battle. Over the past 24 months, his unselfish devotion to duty, exceptional performance, and outstanding professionalism have translated into invaluable service to the Senate. He has advised Members and Senate staff members on matters of great importance to the United States Marine Corps. In the fluid nature of the legislative cycle, he distinguished himself by establishing and developing great working relationships with Senators and their staffs. He responded to thousands of congressional inquiries, ranging from such sensitive issues as notification of combat casualties, to providing timely information on the operations and budget of the Marine Corps. He also planned and executed approximately 15 international congressional delegations. I had the pleasure of traveling on several of these congressional delegations with Colonel Olson. His acumen for social interaction carried over into Colonel Olson's ability to represent his service at numerous Marine Corps and Joint Service social events on Capitol Hill. Among others, these events included the Marine Corps Birthday Commemoration, the Joint Services Reception, and several Marine Corps fall and spring receptions--all important events that enabled me and my Senate colleagues to maintain close relationships with the Marine Corps' senior leadership. On behalf of the Senate, I thank Colonel Olson for his continued service to the Nation and the United States Marine Corps, and I thank his wife, Dawn, for her steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty. As Gregg departs the Senate to assume command of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton, CA, we in the U.S. Senate wish him all the best.