Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been well over a year since 43 students from Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers' College were forcibly disappeared in the state of Guerrero, Mexico. On September 26, 2014, around 100 students from the college traveled to the city of Iguala. They were there to raise money and to obtain buses to attend a commemoration of the infamous massacre of more than 600 students in the capital in 1968. The now former mayor of Iguala has been accused of ordering the attack on the students that evening. While the motive remains a mystery, what appears to have occurred is that the police used lethal force against the students, and the 43 who are missing were handed over to the criminal organization Guerreros Unidos. Six people were killed that day, and the fate of the 43 disappeared students remains unknown. After it became clear, thanks to the courageous and dogged work of foreign journalists that a horrific crime had been covered up by Guerrero officials and the police, the Mexican Government established the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts of the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights to provide independent analysis and technical assistance to the government. The experts' September 2015 report, released on the eve of the 1-year anniversary of this tragedy, exposed significant deficiencies in the government's handling of the investigation and provided an opportunity for the government to restore the integrity of its own inquiry. The government's decision to extend the experts' mandate in the fall was a welcome signal of political will and a desire to build credibility. But as the end of the experts' mandate nears, President Pena Nieto is running out of time to demonstrate that that political will has a lasting impact. The manner in which this investigation is conducted has grave implications not only for the victims of the attacks in Iguala and their families, but for the victims of countless other incidents in which Mexican citizens have vanished during the past decade and remain unaccounted for. I urge the Mexican Government to fully support the experts' investigation by ensuring maximum cooperation of all Mexican officials, including on issues related to the experts' access to all those potentially involved in this incident and the serious pursuit of all possible leads the experts have identified, including by soliciting assistance from the United States. I also urge the government to publicly refute the campaign that some have waged to delegitimize the experts as a way to discredit their work. If the experts' work is forced to carry on with only the passive acquiescence of the government--or worse, subtle attempts to hinder its work--rather than its active support, the progress that has been made may be lost and with it the truth and the Mexican Government's remaining credibility on this issue. The Mexican people, like people everywhere who care about human rights, deserve to know what happened to these students. As I mentioned, we also know there are thousands of other cases in Mexico of disappearances and many reports by the National Human Rights Commission and reputable human rights organizations of incidents of torture and extrajudicial killings. The only way to effectively address the kind of lawlessness that has become far too prevalent in Mexico is to conduct credible, thorough investigations and appropriately punish those responsible, so the message is clear that no one is above the law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of Rebecca Ebinger to fill a judicial vacancy in the Federal district court in the southern district of Iowa. Ms. Ebinger is a highly qualified nominee who has devoted her legal career to public service. Since 2012, she has served as a district judge in Iowa State court. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Ebinger served as a prosecutor at the Federal and State levels in Iowa, including in the U.S. attorney's offices for the southern and northern districts of Iowa. During her tenure as a Federal prosecutor, she was the lead attorney on cases involving violence against women. Judge Ebinger has the strong support of her home State Senators, Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Ernst. With her qualifications, I can understand why Chairman Grassley recommended her to the President for this nomination. What I cannot understand is why moneyed Washington interest groups are calling on Republican Senators to oppose the confirmation of any judicial nominee, regardless of a nominee's merit or qualifications. Judicial nominees like Judge Ebinger have worked hard to build admirable legal careers that have put them at the top of their profession. When judicial nominees submit themselves to the nominations process, they do so expecting and deserving to be considered by Senators exercising their own independent judgement. Judicial nominees not only deserve our independent and considered judgement, it is our constitutional obligation as Senators to provide it. The duty to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees is our own and cannot be abdicated to Washington political action committees. This is especially true when such political action committees are advocating that we turn our backs on the American people by completely shutting down the judicial confirmation process. Too many Americans who have sought justice in our Federal courts since last year have instead found delays and empty courtrooms because of Senate Republicans' obstruction on judicial nominees. Over the course of last year, Senate Republicans allowed confirmation votes on just 11 judicial nominees--and judicial vacancies soared across the country. When Senate Republicans took over the majority in January of last year, there were 43 judicial vacancies. Since then, vacancies have dramatically increased to 77--an increase of more than 75 percent. Furthermore, the number of judicial vacancies deemed to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has nearly tripled under Republican Senate leadership--from 12 when Republicans took over last year to 32 today. Refusing to confirm any judicial nominees for the rest of this year would make the high number of vacancies in our Federal judiciary even worse. In addition to the vote on Judge Ebinger's confirmation today, we have agreed to vote this week on another Iowa district court judge. When we return from the Presidents' Day recess, I hope Republicans will continue confirming judicial nominees with bipartisan support, as Democrats did when we held the majority. In 2008, when I was chairman of the committee with a Republican President, we worked to confirm judicial nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. In fact, Senate Democrats helped confirm all 10 of President Bush's district court nominees pending on the Senate floor in a single day by unanimous consent on September 26, 2008. This was similarly true in 2004, when I was ranking member of the committee with a Republican President, and we worked to confirm nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. There are 19 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor. The next judicial nominee pending after we return from the President's Day recess will be Waverly Crenshaw, an exceptional African-American district court nominee from Tennessee who has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senators Alexander and Corker. I hope the Senators from Tennessee will be able to convince their majority leader to schedule the Tennessee nominee's vote to occur this month. This is an emergency judicial vacancy in their State, so it is clear that this position is sorely needed for Tennesseans to receive swift justice in the middle district of Tennessee. I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Ebinger and look forward to working with my fellow Senators to ensure timely confirmation of the other judicial nominees pending before the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I are reintroducing the Arts Require Timely Service Act or ARTS Act. This bipartisan measure would assist nonprofit arts organizations in obtaining visas for visiting foreign artists. For many renowned artists abroad hoping to share their talent with American audiences, our visa system is often inconsistent and unreliable. Although current law establishes a specific processing period for artist visas, petitioners regularly confront prolonged and uncertain wait times. This delay and uncertainty carries great costs for the nonprofit organizations that seek to bring foreign artists to American audiences. While expedited visa processing is available, many of these organizations are unable to afford those fees, and the resulting delays in regular processing lead to interruptions and cancellations in performance schedules. Ultimately, the inefficiencies in obtaining foreign artist visas stifle the promotion of international cultural exchange and impede the mission of great American cultural institutions. The ARTS Act addresses these challenges by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide expedited processing services, without a fee, if an O- or P- artist visa is not adjudicated within a 14-day time frame, and the petition is filed by or on behalf of a nonprofit organization. The legislation ensures that nonprofit arts organizations do not have to choose between making adjustments to their programming and incurring additional unexpected costs. We should be encouraging international participation in the performing arts, not thwarting it. That is why more than 80 national organizations consisting of musicians, orchestras, museums, performing artists, and local arts organizations such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, support the ARTS Act. I have long been a supporter of the arts and am proud of the great contributions the arts community has made in my home state of Vermont. Organizations such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, Vermont Performance Lab, and Burlington City Arts enrich our State's dynamic culture, are integral to our economy, and ensure that all communities benefit from the remarkable power of the arts. The ARTS Act acknowledges the unique challenges that nonprofit arts organizations confront with our visa system and would assist them in their effort to bring international arts and culture to our communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I are reintroducing the Arts Require Timely Service Act or ARTS Act. This bipartisan measure would assist nonprofit arts organizations in obtaining visas for visiting foreign artists. For many renowned artists abroad hoping to share their talent with American audiences, our visa system is often inconsistent and unreliable. Although current law establishes a specific processing period for artist visas, petitioners regularly confront prolonged and uncertain wait times. This delay and uncertainty carries great costs for the nonprofit organizations that seek to bring foreign artists to American audiences. While expedited visa processing is available, many of these organizations are unable to afford those fees, and the resulting delays in regular processing lead to interruptions and cancellations in performance schedules. Ultimately, the inefficiencies in obtaining foreign artist visas stifle the promotion of international cultural exchange and impede the mission of great American cultural institutions. The ARTS Act addresses these challenges by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide expedited processing services, without a fee, if an O- or P- artist visa is not adjudicated within a 14-day time frame, and the petition is filed by or on behalf of a nonprofit organization. The legislation ensures that nonprofit arts organizations do not have to choose between making adjustments to their programming and incurring additional unexpected costs. We should be encouraging international participation in the performing arts, not thwarting it. That is why more than 80 national organizations consisting of musicians, orchestras, museums, performing artists, and local arts organizations such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, support the ARTS Act. I have long been a supporter of the arts and am proud of the great contributions the arts community has made in my home state of Vermont. Organizations such as the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, Vermont Performance Lab, and Burlington City Arts enrich our State's dynamic culture, are integral to our economy, and ensure that all communities benefit from the remarkable power of the arts. The ARTS Act acknowledges the unique challenges that nonprofit arts organizations confront with our visa system and would assist them in their effort to bring international arts and culture to our communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week the administration took another step in unraveling the web of onerous, misguided, and self-defeating restrictions on the ability of American citizens to travel to Cuba and to interact with the people of Cuba. Effective as of January 27, the Departments of Treasury and Commerce published revised regulations that end certain payment and financing restrictions, allow for more authorized exports to Cuba in a variety of sectors, and expand authorized travel categories and allow additional travel-related transactions. Restrictions on providing access to credit, which have been among the most commonly cited barriers to exporting to Cuba, were removed. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amended regulations regarding nonagricultural exports, and it is now possible for U.S. banks to provide direct financing for authorized exports to Cuba, as opposed to requiring cash in advance or routing through a third country which had stymied many transactions that could benefit American companies and Cuban consumers. General licenses, meaning that a specific license application is no longer required, are now provided for a variety of categories, including telecommunications items that improve communications to, from, and among Cubans; certain agricultural items, such as insecticides and equipment, although not agricultural commodities; items for the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of commercial aircraft; and items necessary for the environmental protection of U.S. and international air quality, waters, or coastlines including items related to renewable energy or energy efficiency. And it is now permissible, subject to case-by-case review, to export to some Cuban state-owned enterprises that ``provide goods and services to the Cuban people.'' This includes items for agricultural production, education, food processing, public transportation, wholesale distribution, and construction of facilities for supplying energy, among others. As much as we disagree with many of the policies of the Cuban Government, it is undeniable that it provides health care, education, public transportation, and many other services that the Cuban people rely on. However, exports to state-owned enterprises that primarily generate revenue for the government remain ineligible to receive U.S. exports along with military, police, intelligence, and security services. Categories for authorized travel to Cuba have been expanded to include organizing professional meetings and for professional media and artistic productions such as movies, TV, and music, among others. These are long overdue and will be welcomed by American scholars, artists, and journalists. I am disappointed, however, that American tourists are still prohibited from traveling to Cuba, unlike to any other country in the world. These are all positive steps, for which I commend the White House. Frankly, it is hard to believe that it has taken so long to finally begin to dismantle a policy of unilateral sanctions against Cuba when it has been obvious for so many years that it has failed to achieve any of its objectives, while it was hurting the people of both countries. But a great deal remains to be done to reverse 50 years of an ill- conceived, punitive policy. It is for that reason that I urge the Administration to act expeditiously to take further action, including amending regulations that would allow Cuba to use the U.S. dollar in third-party country transactions, which would greatly facilitate U.S.- Cuban commerce. The Treasury Department should also do what the American people want by letting them travel to Cuba on a people-to-people license as individuals and stop treating them like children and making them pay thousands of dollars to large tour group operators. The U.S. Government is not in the business of requiring costly chaperones for Americans who travel anywhere else overseas, and it should not do so for Americans traveling 90 miles to Cuba. Allowing all Americans to travel under a general license would significantly boost the number of Americans traveling to Cuba, it would create a much richer travel experience, and it would save taxpayers money. There are some who will undoubtedly continue to insist that any change in policy is somehow a capitulation to the Cuban Government and that, because Cuba's Communist Party remains in control, we should continue supporting a policy that has helped keep them there. That illogical, myopic view has been repudiated by a huge majority of the Cuban people, including some of Cuba's most outspoken critics of the government, and it is rejected by a large and increasing majority of Americans, including Cuban-Americans. The White House has all the support it needs from the American public, the business community, farmers, ranchers, energy companies, faith-based groups, academia, the media, the scientific and medical community, and so many others across this country to take bold action to expand engagement with Cuba. There is no time to waste.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize Ms. Esther Olavarria, an extraordinary public servant who has worked for decades to build an immigration system that is fair and just for all. I know Esther from her time in the Senate as Senator Kennedy's lead advisor on immigration matters for the Judiciary Committee. In the Senate and more recently in the administration, Esther's intelligent, thoughtful advice and analysis has been invaluable. She is stepping down this week after serving as senior counselor to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson. I have no doubt the Secretary will miss her, as I do here in the Senate. Esther was an early appointee of the Obama administration, serving first as a member of the President's transition team on immigration, then as the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Border Security and later as counselor to Secretary Janet Napolitano. During that time she advocated fixing our Nation's broken immigration system and the pressing need to provide protection for asylees and refugees, improve detention conditions, and ensure accountability and transparency in immigration enforcement. In 2013, Esther was asked to serve as the White House Director of Immigration Reform. Her wealth of experience made her an invaluable asset in our bipartisan effort to pass the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act in 2013. The bill overwhelmingly passed the Senate with the bipartisan support of 68 Senators. I remain disappointed that that important bill was not taken up in the House, and I hope the Senate will one day turn again to this legislation. When we do, I know that Esther will be ready to provide her support once again as she has so many times when the Senate has turned its focus to the issue of immigration. In the Senate, Esther understood the importance of working across the aisle to get something done. Like her boss, Senator Kennedy, Esther forged unlikely partnerships and found partners who were drawn to her passion, her sense of humanity, and her dedication. She was a key adviser for the comprehensive immigration reform bills of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Many of us remember Senator Kennedy turning to Esther during the 2007 negotiations not only so that he could seek her counsel, but so that other Senators could benefit from her expertise. Everyone--Republicans, Democrats, advocates, journalists--listened, and everyone was better off for having Esther nearby. Esther, like her late boss, has always been driven by a deep commitment to making our communities stronger and more vibrant. She has advocated on behalf of immigrant children and she has fought to reform inhumane detention practices. And she has underscored the critical importance of the relationship between law enforcement and the immigrant community so that all our communities are safe. A Cuban immigrant who came to the United States at the age of 5, Esther has always sought to advance immigration policies rooted in the American values of fairness and family. Her life experiences as a child led her to a career in immigration law, first helping low-income immigrants in Florida through direct client representation and by cofounding the not-for-profit legal assistance organization Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, and then coming to Washington, DC. I have no doubt that Esther will continue to be an important adviser, but more importantly a devoted friend to so many who have been fortunate to know her. She is an exemplary public servant. I commend Esther for her years of service and wish her and her family the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach for his years of excellent public service as he begins a new chapter in his legal career. Steve has served as the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Ohio for nearly 7 years after the Senate unanimously confirmed him to this position in 2009. Steve is a former member of my Judiciary Committee staff, and I have known him for more than a decade. I am very proud of all that he has accomplished. Steve earned his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College and his law degree from Harvard Law School. After law school, Steve clerked for Judge Stanley Sporkin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He went on to serve in the Department of Justice's civil rights division from 1992 to 1997 and then in the U.S. attorney's office for the district of Maryland from 1997 to 2001. In 2001, Steve joined my Judiciary Committee staff. Steve impressed me with his sound judgment and his outstanding work with both Republican and Democratic offices. Steve worked on a broad range of issues, including drafting and negotiating key whistleblower and criminal fraud provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He played a central role on our oversight team and helped draft an important bipartisan report on the implementation of FISA. The report, written with Senators Grassley and Specter, was the culmination of the committee's first comprehensive oversight effort of the FBI in nearly two decades. After his tenure with my office, Steve served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the northern district of Ohio. He then joined Baker & Hostetler as a partner before he was nominated to his current position. As the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Ohio, Steve has been at the forefront of enforcing civil rights laws, including bringing some of the first cases under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. He has organized educational events on issues such as human trafficking, hate crimes, and police use of force, and formed the United Against Hate religious coalition in the wake of a racially motivated arson at a church in his district. As a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, AGAC, Steve led the AGAC's civil rights subcommittee and worked to establish civil rights units in U.S. attorney's offices across the country. His work will ensure that civil rights remain a Department priority for years to come. Steve is a model public servant who approaches his job with integrity, tenacity, good humor, and sharp negotiating skills that I know will serve him well as he moves back to private practice. Ohio is a safer and better place because of Steve's tireless effort and dedication. I commend Steve for his years of service and wish him and his wonderful family the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation I am introducing today to protect workers and families in Vermont and across the country who are being forced to give up crucial rights because of legal fine print forced on them by corporations. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act combats the injustice of forced arbitration. It will ensure that hardworking men and women can vindicate their rights in court instead of being forced into a private, shadow justice program. Some of the contracts people sign automatically, with little, tiny type, say: If we overbill you, if we give you defective equipment, if we do anything to you, it will go to arbitration. Guess what. The only people who primarily get to pick the arbitrators are those who side with the corporations. Mr. President, I am introducing this legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Whitehouse. Today I want to speak about a problem that many Americans are unaware of but that affects all of us in our daily lives. When Americans sign cell phone agreements, rent an apartment, or accept a contract for a job, most of us focus on the service we are about to receive or that we are about to provide. What Americans do not realize--until it is too late--is that too often we are also signing away crucial legal rights. Legal fine print tips the scales against us. It is forcing consumers into private arbitration, denying us of our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and to have others learn about the harm caused by corporations. This problem has meaningful, real-world implications for Americans' ability to seek justice. When victims are forced into private arbitration, their cases proceed without public record. The cases cannot serve as precedent for future injustices, and the plaintiffs-- hardworking consumers--cannot obtain a meaningful appeal. An arbitrator is selected by the corporate defendant, creating incentives that favor repeat corporate players. In many cases, forced arbitration stops victims' legal actions altogether: by requiring victims to waive their legal right to join with other victims in a class action, arbitration clauses often remove the crucial tool that plaintiffs need to afford pursuing their claims. The injustice of forced arbitration affects consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in every State across the country. The cases are heart-wrenching. In one recent case, a pregnant woman suffered a tragic miscarriage and was not able to work for 7 days. When she returned to work, she was fired. When this woman attempted to hold her employer accountable in court for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act and her State's pregnancy discrimination laws, her case was forced into private arbitration. We do not know the outcome of the case, but that is precisely the problem. In private arbitration, there is no way to know if she obtained justice, no precedent to deter other employers from such behavior, and no public accountability for the corporation that may have violated both State and Federal law. In another recent case, an hourly employee at a hospital realized she was not being paid for all of the time she worked because her employer's payroll system was ``rounding down'' her time. When she attempted to bring a class action on behalf of all the hourly employees at the hospital, her lawsuit was dismissed and forced into individual arbitration. To seek justice, the hospital employees must now pay to bring their complaints case-by-case, even though the cost of bringing an individual arbitration almost certainly outweighs the lost wages any worker would receive. Forced arbitration has also been a favorite tool for well-heeled corporations to make an end-run around our civil rights laws. When working women are paid less for doing the same job; when minorities are denied promotions despite their success; or when banks target poor minority neighborhoods with predatory loans, the closed and unaccountable forum of private arbitration lets them conceal their discriminatory actions. This system of forced arbitration denies individuals access to justice. But it also guts vital protections we have fought for in our laws. Whether we are talking about family and medical leave, equal pay, or crucial civil rights protections, what strength do our laws have when the legal process Congress created to enforce them is stripped away without recourse? Through legal fine print, corporations are giving themselves a ``get out of jail free'' pass that guts citizens' rights and shields bad actors from accountability. When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, it was intended to give sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes. There is a valid role for arbitration when parties choose it willingly, after a dispute arises, as an alternative to court. But arbitration should not be forced upon consumers and workers through take-it-or-leave it contracts they have no real choice but to accept. And it should not--it must not--prevent Americans from enforcing their rights under fundamental State and Federal laws. Nor should Federal law interfere when States take action to address the injustice of forced arbitration. A full 47 of our 50 States have tried to protect their citizens in some way from forced arbitration, but these efforts have been thwarted by Federal law. In Vermont, lawmakers required that arbitration clauses be accompanied by a written acknowledgement signed by both parties, to ensure that consumers were aware of them. This reasonable, commonsense requirement was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Following a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T v. Concepcion, other efforts in Vermont and across the country to protect citizens from forced arbitration have also been invalidated. Vermonters who tried to sue their phone service provider for disturbing them with unwanted text messages and Vermont drivers who tried to sue their car insurers over coverage have all been forced into private arbitration despite conflicting measures in Vermont law. This restriction on States' authority is wrong, especially when the enforceability of contracts is traditionally an area left to State law. This is not a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. Congress must act to stop these abuses. That is why today I am introducing legislation to limit the injustice of forced arbitration and protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act will ensure that critical State and Federal laws can actually be effective, by ensuring that citizens cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights using our independent justice system. It will also ensure that when States take action to address forced arbitration, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws. This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, Americans For Financial Reform, Alliance for Justice, Earthjustice and consumer groups such as Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. These groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the unparalleled scope and number of people it affects. All Senators should care about the implications of forced arbitration for statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about their home States' ability to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts when their State chooses to act. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation I am introducing today to protect workers and families in Vermont and across the country who are being forced to give up crucial rights because of legal fine print forced on them by corporations. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act combats the injustice of forced arbitration. It will ensure that hardworking men and women can vindicate their rights in court instead of being forced into a private, shadow justice program. Some of the contracts people sign automatically, with little, tiny type, say: If we overbill you, if we give you defective equipment, if we do anything to you, it will go to arbitration. Guess what. The only people who primarily get to pick the arbitrators are those who side with the corporations. Mr. President, I am introducing this legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Whitehouse. Today I want to speak about a problem that many Americans are unaware of but that affects all of us in our daily lives. When Americans sign cell phone agreements, rent an apartment, or accept a contract for a job, most of us focus on the service we are about to receive or that we are about to provide. What Americans do not realize--until it is too late--is that too often we are also signing away crucial legal rights. Legal fine print tips the scales against us. It is forcing consumers into private arbitration, denying us of our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and to have others learn about the harm caused by corporations. This problem has meaningful, real-world implications for Americans' ability to seek justice. When victims are forced into private arbitration, their cases proceed without public record. The cases cannot serve as precedent for future injustices, and the plaintiffs-- hardworking consumers--cannot obtain a meaningful appeal. An arbitrator is selected by the corporate defendant, creating incentives that favor repeat corporate players. In many cases, forced arbitration stops victims' legal actions altogether: by requiring victims to waive their legal right to join with other victims in a class action, arbitration clauses often remove the crucial tool that plaintiffs need to afford pursuing their claims. The injustice of forced arbitration affects consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in every State across the country. The cases are heart-wrenching. In one recent case, a pregnant woman suffered a tragic miscarriage and was not able to work for 7 days. When she returned to work, she was fired. When this woman attempted to hold her employer accountable in court for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act and her State's pregnancy discrimination laws, her case was forced into private arbitration. We do not know the outcome of the case, but that is precisely the problem. In private arbitration, there is no way to know if she obtained justice, no precedent to deter other employers from such behavior, and no public accountability for the corporation that may have violated both State and Federal law. In another recent case, an hourly employee at a hospital realized she was not being paid for all of the time she worked because her employer's payroll system was ``rounding down'' her time. When she attempted to bring a class action on behalf of all the hourly employees at the hospital, her lawsuit was dismissed and forced into individual arbitration. To seek justice, the hospital employees must now pay to bring their complaints case-by-case, even though the cost of bringing an individual arbitration almost certainly outweighs the lost wages any worker would receive. Forced arbitration has also been a favorite tool for well-heeled corporations to make an end-run around our civil rights laws. When working women are paid less for doing the same job; when minorities are denied promotions despite their success; or when banks target poor minority neighborhoods with predatory loans, the closed and unaccountable forum of private arbitration lets them conceal their discriminatory actions. This system of forced arbitration denies individuals access to justice. But it also guts vital protections we have fought for in our laws. Whether we are talking about family and medical leave, equal pay, or crucial civil rights protections, what strength do our laws have when the legal process Congress created to enforce them is stripped away without recourse? Through legal fine print, corporations are giving themselves a ``get out of jail free'' pass that guts citizens' rights and shields bad actors from accountability. When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, it was intended to give sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes. There is a valid role for arbitration when parties choose it willingly, after a dispute arises, as an alternative to court. But arbitration should not be forced upon consumers and workers through take-it-or-leave it contracts they have no real choice but to accept. And it should not--it must not--prevent Americans from enforcing their rights under fundamental State and Federal laws. Nor should Federal law interfere when States take action to address the injustice of forced arbitration. A full 47 of our 50 States have tried to protect their citizens in some way from forced arbitration, but these efforts have been thwarted by Federal law. In Vermont, lawmakers required that arbitration clauses be accompanied by a written acknowledgement signed by both parties, to ensure that consumers were aware of them. This reasonable, commonsense requirement was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Following a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T v. Concepcion, other efforts in Vermont and across the country to protect citizens from forced arbitration have also been invalidated. Vermonters who tried to sue their phone service provider for disturbing them with unwanted text messages and Vermont drivers who tried to sue their car insurers over coverage have all been forced into private arbitration despite conflicting measures in Vermont law. This restriction on States' authority is wrong, especially when the enforceability of contracts is traditionally an area left to State law. This is not a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. Congress must act to stop these abuses. That is why today I am introducing legislation to limit the injustice of forced arbitration and protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act will ensure that critical State and Federal laws can actually be effective, by ensuring that citizens cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights using our independent justice system. It will also ensure that when States take action to address forced arbitration, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws. This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, Americans For Financial Reform, Alliance for Justice, Earthjustice and consumer groups such as Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. These groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the unparalleled scope and number of people it affects. All Senators should care about the implications of forced arbitration for statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about their home States' ability to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts when their State chooses to act. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had planned to be in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, debating and pushing for passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. Unfortunately, the markup was postponed. I wish it had not been. So I hope next week we can make progress on this important bill. We have a need for this legislation, and we also need the money for it. Senator Shaheen has an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. These are actually both urgent matters. States such as mine, Vermont, and our neighboring State of New Hampshire have been deeply affected by this wave of addiction. The media has covered this very personal and ravaging epidemic as never before. We have seen a transformation in how we talk about this issue and the need for solutions. It used to be that if you had a drug problem, they would bring in the police to straighten it out. We have removed the stigma of drug addiction, but we need more than talk. I have visited many of these communities. They are devastated by this epidemic and need resources for prevention and treatment. It is time for Congress to act. For years I have been convening field hearings and sitting at kitchen tables, listening to Vermonters discuss innovative approaches to confront drug abuse and related crimes. I have also sat at kitchen tables and listened to tragic stories about a member of the family who had been hit with opioid addiction. What I have heard in the meetings I have had with the police, doctors, family members, faith community, and educators is that we cannot arrest or jail our way out of this problem. We have lost the war on drugs--if we were ever winning it--because we relied primarily on unnecessarily harsh sentencing laws. I spent 8 years in law enforcement, and I know that law enforcement practices will always play an important role. That is why I have worked to secure funding for State-led, anti-heroin task forces. But if we want to find lasting solutions to these problems, we have to identify and support effective prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. CARA does just that. This legislation would support innovative, evidence-based solutions--best practices that are already showing great progress in States like mine. We need to do all we can to prevent and treat the abuse of prescription opioids. I have pushed for years to have the FDA promote safer alternatives to powerful prescription pain killers and to remove from the market the older, less safe drugs. The FDA's announcement to expand access to abuse-deterrent formulations of these powerful drugs is a step in the right direction in response to my concerns, but the FDA can and must do more. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 28, 2014, Leahy-Blumenthal letter to the FDA Commissioner.

Mr. LEAHY. I am also concerned that rural communities are in desperate need of the lifesaving drug naloxone so that opioid overdoses can be stopped. I have heard from law enforcement officers and grateful families what a miracle this drug can be, so we need to make sure we have it supplied where it can literally save lives. I have had police officers tell me that they arrived at a scene with an overdose, and because they had that with them, they saved the life of the person. If they had not had it, the person would have been dead by the time the ambulance arrived. In Vermont, we have seen a 65 percent increase in the number of Vermonters getting treatment for their addiction over the past 2 years. This is encouraging progress and reflects the fact that our Governor and also State legislators of both parties have stepped up. But we know that there are hundreds more who are on waiting lists, and patients in the very rural corners of my State travel hours just to get their medication. We need to do more about this real threat to our communities. I am very proud to cosponsor Senator Shaheen's emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I want to be able to fund additional public health outreach, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement efforts. We have passed much larger emergency supplemental bills to address swine flu and Ebola. We passed huge supplemental bills on Ebola when we did not have a single case of Ebola originate here in the United States. We were worried about it coming in, but it did not originate here. But here, we have tens of thousands in the Presiding Officer's State, in my State, and in every other State. We have to take the health epidemic already in our communities just as seriously as we did those diseases that did not originate on our shores. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy and Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2506 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is currently considering sweeping legislation to modernize the Nation's energy sector. Despite its laudable goals, it leaves one area unaddressed. The bill does nothing to stop corporate bad actors, including those in the energy sector, from simply writing off their egregious misconduct as a cost of doing business. Today I am submitting a commonsense amendment to close a tax loophole that forces hard-working Americans to subsidize corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a corporation can deduct the cost of court-ordered punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims who have already paid the price for extreme corporate misconduct, there is nothing ``ordinary'' about this at all. It is simply wrong. It offends our most basic notions of justice and fair play. Punitive damage awards are designed to punish wrongdoers for the reprehensible harm that they cause and to deter would-be bad actors from repeating similar mistakes. Today a company can simply hire a team of lawyers and accountants to deduct this punishment from the taxes the company owes. My amendment would end this offensive practice with a simple fix to our Tax Code. Let us not forget that our energy sector has been plagued with companies that have recklessly destroyed environments and harmed communities with impunity. In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for the Valdez spill in Alaska. This oil spill devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and a way of life. After Exxon paid white-shoe law firms to fight these damages in the courts for 14 years, it successfully brought its damages down to $500 million. Then, adding insult to injury, Exxon used the Federal Tax Code to write off its punitive damages as nothing more than an ``ordinary'' business expense. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, and 11 Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. If forced to pay punitive damages for their misconduct, these companies could also write off that expense. The Obama administration has requested eliminating this tax deduction in its budget proposals. Our very own Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers more than $400 million over 10 years. If we don't change the law, our deficit will grow by nearly half a billion dollars because we allowed taxpayers to subsidize the worst corporate actors. By failing to act, we are sending the message that pillaging our environment is an encouraged, tax-deductible behavior. This amendment makes fiscal sense, and it is common sense. Vermonters and Americans are tired of seeing giant corporations getting special treatment under the law--and paying for their reckless mistakes. It should shock the conscience to know that current law compels taxpayers to effectively subsidize the malfeasance of the worst corporate actors. My amendment would change this unacceptable status quo. I urge Senators to support my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of John Michael Vazquez to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal district court in the district of New Jersey. His confirmation is long overdue. He was nominated over 10 months ago and reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 months ago. Mr. Vazquez is an outstanding nominee who has experience both in private practice and in the public sector. Since 2008, he has practiced as a named partner at the law firm of Critchley, Kinum & Vazquez in Roseland, NJ. He has also devoted a significant part of his career to public service, having worked for both the office of the attorney general for the State of New Jersey and as a Federal prosecutor in the district of New Jersey. During his tenure as a Federal prosecutor, Mr. Vazquez handled a wide array of Federal investigations and prosecutions while serving in the general crimes unit, the major narcotics unit, the terrorism unit, and the securities and health care fraud unit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Vazquez ``Well Qualified'' to serve as a Federal district judge, its highest rating. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senators Menendez and Booker. Mr. Vazquez's nomination reflects the enormous progress that the Senate and this administration have made in making the Federal judiciary more diverse and more representative of the citizenry it serves. The fact that there are more women and minorities than ever before serving on our Federal bench is important. The result of this progress is that it increases public confidence in our justice system. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have stalled this progress by obstructing several highly qualified Hispanic nominees. For example, Senate Republicans delayed the confirmation of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania nominated to the third circuit, for more than a year. This was the case despite his excellent legal and judicial career and the strong bipartisan support he had from his home State Senators. In addition, the junior Senator from Arkansas continues to impose a wholesale blockade on the nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including Armando Bonilla, a Cuban American who has devoted his entire career to public service at the U.S. Department of Justice. If confirmed, Mr. Bonilla would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on that court, where he is urgently needed. The chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims has written to Chairman Grassley and me to express the need to confirm the pending nominees; yet Senator Cotton is being allowed to hold up these well-qualified nominees. And just last week, the junior Senator from Georgia announced that he was withdrawing his support for the nomination of a Hispanic nominee to a Federal district court in Georgia. Judge Dax Lopez has served as a distinguished State court judge in DeKalb County, GA, since 2010. With his experience, I was not surprised that the Georgia Senators submitted Judge Lopez's name to the White House for consideration to the Federal district court. After recommending him to the White House, it is unfortunate that the junior Senator from Georgia is now blocking his nomination because of Judge Lopez's membership on the board of directors for the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. This nonpartisan organization's mission ``is to increase civic engagement and leadership of the Latino/Hispanic community across Georgia.'' But some conservatives have focused only on the fact that the organization supported common sense immigration reform--something that a bipartisan majority of this body supported when we passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. I have long noted that I do not vote to confirm individuals to the bench because I expect to agree with all of their views. My standard is whether the nominee would be the kind of independent judge who would be fair and impartial. There is nothing in Judge Lopez's record to suggest that he could not or would not be an impartial judge. Judge Lopez has been a State court judge for nearly 6 years. Those who oppose Judge Lopez have decided that, because he was on the board of directors of an organization that advocates certain policies with which they disagree, they refuse to even consider his record or his own merits. This new litmus test for his membership in a nonpartisan organization sets a dangerous precedent that Senators should reject. We also saw this unreasonable treatment from Senate Republicans with the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to the northern district of California. Despite having served as a Federal magistrate judge for a decade, Senate Republicans held up Judge Chen's nomination for years because Judge Chen had previously worked for the American Civil Liberties Union. According to one Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Chen had the ``ACLU gene,'' and so somehow he could not possibly be a fair judge--even though Judge Chen had shown that he could be an independent and neutral arbiter over the 10-year period that he served as a Federal magistrate judge. This new litmus test is completely unfair. I am sorry that Senate Republicans have now subjected Judge Lopez to this. This afternoon, I hope we do not see a repeat of what happened to Judge Wilhelmina Wright, who was confirmed last week to the district court in Minnesota with a large number of ``no'' votes from Republicans. Judge Wright was the first African-American woman to serve on the Minnesota Supreme Court and the first person to serve on all three levels of the Minnesota State judiciary; yet many Republicans chose to side with the moneyed Washington interest groups who unfairly attacked her nomination based on a writing assignment from her third year of law school. That a Washington political action committee is opposing a nominee should not prevent Senators from exercising their own fair judgment. The resource needs of our independent judiciary should not be tainted by calls for a shutdown of our constitutional role as Senators. I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Vazquez.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, tomorrow marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade recognizing a woman's constitutional right to liberty and personal autonomy in her decision of whether to have an abortion or not. This landmark case not only recognizes those rights, but it is also responsible for saving countless women across the country from the devastating and deadly outcomes of back-alley abortions. I want to speak to that because I have some personal knowledge here. I was a young State's attorney in Vermont before Roe v. Wade, and I will never forget getting a call in the middle of the night from the police and going with them to the emergency room of the local hospital. The young woman who was there had nearly died from an unsafe, illegal abortion because she could not legally receive that care from a doctor. I want to speak of that tragic history today because I feel the current effort in many States to roll back Roe v. Wade by denying women access to doctors could drag women back to those dark and dangerous times. In the years leading up to the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, I was the State's attorney in Chittenden County, VT. Abortion was illegal in my State of Vermont. Despite the State ban, many women desperately needed and sought this medical care, and some doctors risked their freedom and livelihood by providing women with abortions at local hospitals. These were safe abortions in medical facilities that saved women's lives and protected their health. Knowing this, I made it clear to the doctors in my county that I would not prosecute any of them for providing this medical attention to women in a medical facility. I did, however, prosecute to the full extent of the law others who preyed upon women's fear and desperation by extorting them for unsafe, back-alley abortions. There are 100 Senators in this body. I am the only U.S. Senator who has ever prosecuted somebody in an abortion case. I vividly remember that horrific case. It was the spring of 1968, and I was called to the hospital to see this young woman, as I mentioned. She had nearly died from hemorrhaging caused by the botched abortion. I prosecuted the man who had arranged for the unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed her. After that case and after witnessing firsthand the tragic impact that the lack of safe and legal abortion care had on women and families in my State, I talked to the local doctors about challenging Vermont's abortion law. A year later, a group of women and doctors brought a class action case to overturn the law. The case was styled as a suit against me as a State prosecutor, but this was a test case against the law, and I publicly welcomed the case. Even when the office of the State attorney general told me that it lacked resources to devote to any defense in this case, I decided to file briefs of my own, but the case was unable to proceed because none of the plaintiffs were seeking abortions at the time. The particular nature of the constitutional claim to abortion, which by its nature is a time-limited claim, made it extremely difficult to bring actionable cases before the courts. But later that same year, we got another chance. The case in which I represented the State and did the briefs was Beecham v. Leahy, and it quickly made its way to the Vermont supreme court. At that time, our State's high court was composed entirely of Republicans, but these conservative justices understood what we had been arguing all along--that a statute whose stated purpose was to protect women's health, yet denied women access to doctors for their medical care, was sheer and dangerous hypocrisy. The court's opinion rightly questioned: Where is that concern for the health of a pregnant woman when she is denied the advice and assistance of her doctors? The court's ruling in Beecham v. Leahy, that protecting women's health for required access to safe and legal abortions, ensured that the women of Vermont would no longer be subjected to the horrors of back-alley abortions. It was a victory for women's health in Vermont. Even though the attorney general moved for reargument, I told the court as the State's attorney that I had no objection to the ruling and concurred with it. A year later the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade held what is now the law of the land. Women have a constitutional right to their autonomy and bodily integrity that protects their decision to have an abortion and to make that decision with their doctors. I recount this history not just to mark another year of women's rights and safety under both Roe v. Wade and Beecham v. Leahy, but also to connect the history to the attack today on women's access to safe and legal abortions that are threatening to take us back to those times. States looking to roll back women's rights have returned to penalizing doctors to deter them from providing women with safe health care. What I find most appalling is that States that are passing these laws claiming they somehow protect women's health. Yet these laws have nothing to do with women's health, and they have everything to do with shutting down women's access to safe and legal abortion. When you deny women access to doctors for medical services, you deny them their constitutional rights. You also deny them their safety and, in some cases, their lives. This is a fact that legislators passing these laws either callously ignore or willfully choose not to hear. I still remember that case as though it was yesterday. I still remember that young woman, and I still remember the history of the person who was performing those illegal abortions. That is why I joined an amicus brief with 37 other Senators and 124 Members of the House in the Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt case currently before the Supreme Court. Our brief urges the Court to overturn a State law that requires doctors who provide abortions to meet onerous restrictions that apply to no other medical procedures and are completely unrelated to protecting women's health. The Texas law at issue would have the effect of shuttering 75 percent of all women's health clinics that provide abortion services in the State if the full law were implemented, as well as possibly shuttering all the other services they provide. Already, parts of the law in effect have had a devastating impact on women's health. As a University of Texas study of women showed, after the law went into effect, an estimated 100,000 to 240,000 women have tried to end their pregnancies on their own without seeking medical attention. The study found that women, with nowhere to turn, resorted to herbs, illicit drugs, and even self-harm. That this law was passed under the pretense of women's health is a travesty, and it should be struck down. The Supreme Court Justices cannot ignore the impact upholding this State law will have on hundreds of thousands of women in Texas and across the Nation. When I see these efforts to prevent women's access to safe and legal medical services, I think about all the young women in Vermont who have grown up knowing only that the U.S. Constitution and the Vermont Constitution protects their liberty and also recognizes that they are capable of deciding for themselves matters that control their lives and their destiny. I hope they and the generations after them never experience otherwise from the Supreme Court. I will speak further on this subject another time, but when I think about what that young woman in Vermont turned to, I am glad our case to uphold our Constitution's right to privacy, Beecham v. Leahy, is on the books. I applaud the very conservative, very Republican Supreme Court Justices who wrote it in a nearly unanimous opinion. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the fear and xenophobia being peddled by some Republican candidates for President is now being given time on the Senate floor. Instead of solving the real problems facing Americans--like the student debt crisis or our need for energy independence--or responding to real threats to our national security--like our failure to track visa overstays or prevent terrorists from buying guns--today we are debating a strawman inspired by Donald Trump's baseless rhetoric. The bill the Republican leader is asking us to consider will not make America safer. In fact, it is a dangerous distraction that plays into the hands of the ISIS propaganda machine. Instead of demonizing refugees, who are the most thoroughly screened group of people who enter the United States, we should take up and pass the Defeat ISIS and Protect and Secure the United States Act of 2015. That bill offers a comprehensive strategy to counter ISIS propaganda and violent extremism in the United States and abroad. It offers real solutions that will keep us safe rather than scapegoating refugees who are fleeing war and torture. In contrast, the bill we are asked to consider has put forward fresh fodder for the false narrative that we are at war with Islam. I will oppose this House bill.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, our Nation celebrated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is a hero to millions of Americans for helping to break down racial barriers in this country. It is fitting that today the Senate is turning to a confirmation vote that will increase racial diversity on our Federal bench. Justice Wilhelmina Wright is nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Justice Wright currently serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court. She is the first African- American woman to serve on that court and the first person in Minnesota history to serve as a judge at all three levels of the State judiciary. I commend Senators Klobuchar and Franken for their tireless efforts in helping to move this nomination to a vote. A vote on her nomination is long overdue. Justice Wright was nominated in April 2015, over 9 months ago. She was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 months ago. After months of needless delay, we could and should have voted to confirm her at the end of the last session. I know Justice Wright will make a superb Federal judge. Since 2012, she has served as an associate justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court. From 2002 to 2012, she served on the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and prior to her tenure on that court, she was the first African-American to serve as a judge on the district court in the second judicial district, Ramsey County, Minnesota, from 2000 to 2002. In her 15-year judicial career, Justice Wright has presided over or served on panels that decided more than 2,000 cases. Prior to her appointment to the bench, she was a Federal prosecutor for the district of Minnesota for 5 years. Justice Wright graduated with her B.A., cum laude, from Yale University and earned her law degree from Harvard Law School. Upon graduating from law school, she clerked for Judge Damon J. Keith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With her considerable professional experience, it is no surprise that the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated her ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the district court, its highest rating. She also has the enthusiastic support of her home State Senators, Senators Franken and Klobuchar. Based on her wealth of judicial experience and broad support, I cannot think of any good reason why Justice Wright should not be confirmed with an overwhelming vote. After Justice Wright is confirmed, there will be votes under a bipartisan agreement on three other district court nominees--one to the district of New Jersey, one to the southern district of Iowa, and one to the northern district of Iowa. These nominees will be confirmed by President's Day. After we return to session in February, I hope that Republican leadership will continue to schedule nominees for confirmation votes to address the 72 current judicial vacancies that we face today, 32 of which are judicial emergencies. A Politico article last week discussed demands from certain extreme conservative groups for Republican leadership to shut down the confirmation process and block all judicial confirmations for the remainder of the year. I am hopeful that the majority leader will not let moneyed Washington interests decide whether we will uphold our Senatorial oath to provide advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations. Shutting down all judicial confirmations would be a dangerous departure from prior practice. In the last 5 Presidential election years, the Senate has confirmed an average of 30 judicial nominees in the final year prior to Election Day. As both chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with Republicans to confirm judicial nominees, report nominees out of committee, and hold hearings for nominees well into September of Presidential election years. This was the case in 2008, when I was chairman of the committee with a Republican President, and we worked to confirm judicial nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. In fact, Senate Democrats helped confirm all 10 of President Bush's district court nominees pending on the Senate floor in a single day by unanimous consent on September 26, 2008. This was similarly true in 2004, when I was ranking member of the committee with a Republican President, and we worked to confirm nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. Any attempt to shut down the judicial confirmation process to satisfy moneyed Washington interests groups would be wrong. It would only work to harm our justice system and the American people we were elected to represent. Outstanding nominees from Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, New York, and California have been pending on the floor for months. Nearly all of them would fill emergency vacancies. Votes on these nominees must be scheduled without further delay. In addition to these pending nominees, there are also four Pennsylvania district court nominees and a Rhode Island nominee that the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to report out this month. And in committee, nominees from States represented by Republican Senators-- including Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Indiana-- continue to wait for a hearing. It is up to the Senators from those States to urge their leadership to consider these nominees without delay so they can serve the people of those great States. I urge a vote for her confirmation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on both sides be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio. We are finally going to vote on the long overdue confirmation of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the third circuit in Pennsylvania. He was nominated way over a year ago--nearly 14 months ago--with strong bipartisan support from home State Senators. This is a case where, unfortunately, the Republican leadership has subjected Judge Restrepo to totally unnecessary delay as part of their wholesale obstruction of judicial nominees. Their actions hurt not only the people of Pennsylvania, but also Americans across the country as judicial vacancies have remained unfilled nationwide after Republicans took over the Senate majority last year. I hope that today's vote and the agreement to vote on four district court nominees this work period signals a return to the Senate fulfilling its constitutional duty of providing advice and consent on the President's nominees. In all of 2015, Senate Republicans allowed votes on only 11 judicial nominations. This matched the record for confirming the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. I mention that because Democrats took the majority in the last 2 years of President Bush's term. We confirmed 40 judges during that year-- 40. I was chairman. I remember that very well. I didn't want to repeat the things that we saw during the Clinton administration, where the Republicans came in and the then-Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee killed over 60 nominees of the Clinton administration by not allowing them to have a vote in committee. I said: Let's move faster. I moved 40 through. Did the Republicans do the same? No, they allowed 11. Republicans also left town at the end of last year with 19 judicial nominees still pending on the floor, including Judge Restrepo. Each of the nominees has the support of their home state Senators and their nominations were reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. These are the kind of noncontroversial judicial nominees that the Senate has traditionally confirmed at the end of a session. During the Obama administration, however, Republicans have rejected this practice. Judge Restrepo exemplifies the kind of consensus nominee that should have been easily confirmed at the end of the session. He is nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which has two vacant judgeships in Pennsylvania. He has the strong bipartisan support of his home state Senators, Senator Casey and Senator Toomey. In fact, Senator Toomey has said he personally recommended Judge Restrepo to the President for the nomination. In 2013, this body confirmed Judge Restrepo's nomination to the Federal district court by voice vote. I have heard no objection from any Senator to Judge Restrepo's nomination. I cannot believe this man who will be the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania for the third circuit was humiliated by having to wait 14 months. This highly qualified Hispanic judge was told to go to the back of the line and wait 14 months. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. I will vote to confirm Judge Restrepo. Since 2013, he has served as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For the seven years prior, he served as a Federal magistrate judge on the same court. Before joining the bench, Judge Restrepo was in private practice as a named partner at Krasner & Restrepo. He began his legal career serving as a public defender as an Assistant Defender for the Defender Association of Philadelphia before becoming an Assistant Federal Defender for the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on July 9, 2015. His nomination has the full support of the Hispanic National Bar Association. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Hispanic National Bar Association's letter in support of Judge Restrepo at the conclusion of my remarks. Republicans' obstruction of highly qualified judicial nominees with strong support, like Judge Restrepo, has resulted in a sharp rise in judicial vacancies. When Senate Republicans took over the majority in January of last year, there were 43 judicial vacancies. After a year of Republicans neglecting judicial confirmations, vacancies have dramatically increased to 72--an increase of more than 60 percent. Furthermore, the number of judicial vacancies deemed to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has nearly tripled under Republican Senate leadership--from 12 when Republicans took over last year to 33 today. In his annual year-end report, even Chief Justice Roberts drew our attention to the ``crushing dockets'' and heavy caseloads that strain the Federal judiciary and prevent Americans from obtaining timely justice in our courts. The high number of vacancies is entirely of the Senate Republican leadership's making, and Senate action is required to resolve it. The first step is to confirm the rest of the 18 judicial nominees pending right now on the floor. Under a bipartisan agreement reached at the end of last year, the Majority Leader will schedule confirmation votes on four district court nominees between now and the President's Day recess. After we vote on those nominees, we will still have nominees from Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, New York, and California pending on the floor, nearly all of whom would fill emergency vacancies. Votes on these nominees must be scheduled without further delay. Let's start facing up to fact that we have enormous problems with judiciary emergencies in States where both Republicans and Democrats have supported the nominees. Let them come forward. Let them be voted on. Let's stop making the Federal courts a political pawn. It is bad enough with all the political shenanigans going on in this country anyway in an election year. Don't do them with the Federal court system. We have the best, the most honest, the least partisan Federal court system anywhere in the world. But don't say: Oh, you are a highly qualified Hispanic nominee, but you just wait there for 14 months, be humiliated, and then we will finally allow a vote. I don't care whether someone is Hispanic or non-Hispanic; we have so many men and women who are highly qualified. In addition to the nominees pending on the floor, there are also four Pennsylvania district court nominees that the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to report out this month. I sincerely hope the junior Senator from Pennsylvania can convince the Republican Majority Leader not to submit these additional Pennsylvania nominees to the extensive confirmation delay that Judge Restrepo endured. The people of Pennsylvania have waited long enough. I also understand that the White House has been working for months with Senator Toomey and Senator Casey on the second Pennsylvania vacancy on the third circuit. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee considering that nomination soon.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the time for the vote is upon us. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?