Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have been privileged to work in civil practice, where I defended people, and also to have spent 8 years as a prosecutor. I stand behind nobody in my support of law enforcement. I was picked as one of the three outstanding prosecutors in this country when I was a prosecutor. But I believed throughout all that time that everybody who was prosecuted deserved the best of representation. Despite Debo's expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a single case: Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal of his death sentence for the 1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. I condemn that murder. I condemn the murderer for it. But, just as the British in the Boston Massacre deserved representation, and got it from John Adams; just as the man who murdered a number of people, including a couple of teenagers, deserved representation from John Roberts, a Republican who is now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; so, too, did Mumia Abu- Jamal deserve legal representation. The murder of Officer Faulkner was a horrific tragedy, and my heart goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members who have lost a loved one in the line of duty. Officer Faulkner served bravely to protect our community and to defend our system of justice and our Constitution. We are trying to defend it too. It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many of us to support programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. I might point out to some of my friends who stand here in righteous indignation against this nomination, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I began a bulletproof vest program that has bought bulletproof vests for officers all over this country. It is up for reauthorization. It has saved the lives of police officers. Not a single Republican has joined me in the effort to reauthorize what was a bipartisan piece of legislation that actually saves the lives of police officers. But, they will come down here and wax eloquently and misleadingly against this good nominee. If you listen to them or you listen to FOX News, you might think the nominee himself is a criminal. Of course he is not. These attacks launched against this nominee demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a lawyer and the very constitutional system of justice that law enforcement officers all swear an oath to protect. It is time to clear the record. First, the assertion that Debo made the decision for LDF to take on Abu-Jamal's case is simply not accurate. That decision was made by the previous president of LDF. The nominee we are considering today has testified under oath that it was not his decision. But once the decision was made, and he was appointed to do it, he had a duty, as an officer of the court, to do his best to represent his client, no matter how distasteful or unpopular. Debo's role in the Abu-Jamal case was limited to two Supreme Court briefs and one Third Circuit brief. Attempts to attribute more to Debo, including the out-of-court statements by other LDF attorneys, are unfounded. These remind me of the attacks that were made against Thurgood Marshall when he was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time, Republican Senator Keating provided an articulate response of why such attacks are unreasonable and unfair: If counsel is suggesting something that Judge Marshall must have the responsibility for every little action that is taken by any lawyer who has been appearing in an NAACP case, he is imposing a standard of responsibility which certainly goes beyond any point of reasonableness. Judge Marshall's conduct and his ethical standards have not been questioned in these hearings. It is ridiculous to suggest that he may be disqualified for judicial service because some other lawyers who appeared in an NAACP case may or may not have done things which counsel considers questionable and where there is absolutely no showing that Judge Marshall has anything to do with the conduct at issue. Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if it had been Debo's decision to represent Mr. Abu-Jamal, that should not disqualify him from public service. Our legal system is an adversary system, predicated upon advocacy for both sides. Without this, our justice system would be a sham. We do not criticize John Adams; we do not criticize John Roberts. Now-Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005: [I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law . . . [T]hat you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice. It is for this reason that as a nominee before the Senate John Roberts was not criticized for choosing to provide pro bono assistance to John Errol Ferguson, a prisoner in Florida who had been sentenced to death for killing eight people, including two teenagers, in the late 1970s. I agree with what John Adams did. I agree with what John Roberts did. I agree with what Debo did, too. Whether it is John Adams or John Roberts, the principle that all sides deserve an effective counsel is at the bedrock of our constitutional system. We cannot equate the lawyer with the conduct of those we represent if we want our justice system to endure. After Debo's confirmation hearing in early January, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee himself expressed the same sentiment when he said: ``You always have to take into consideration that everybody under our constitution is entitled to a defense.'' Some have argued that the Abu-Jamal case is somehow different because it became a ``political cause'' and was no longer just a case about defending an unpopular client. But regardless of who the defendant might be, the constitutional right to a fair trial has nothing to do with politics and cannot be dismissed as merely a ``political cause.'' In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the district attorney's appeal of the lower court decisions, thereby affirming the decisions to vacate the death sentence. However unpopular LDF's decision to represent Abu-Jamal might be, these decisions by independent Federal judges affirm that this case was about defending the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and not merely some political stunt. Finally, while criticism of a nominee's qualifications is certainly part of the appointment process, some attacks are--by any measure--out of bounds. Last month, while Debo's nomination was still in the Judiciary Committee, the Washington Times published an editorial caricature of Debo that was racially-tinged, offensive, and beyond the pale. I have spoken out against the insulting attempts to defame the nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I do so again today. I would also hope that those who are opposing Debo's nomination would similarly distance themselves from them. Debo Adegbile is one of the Nation's leading civil rights lawyers. Those of us who have worked with him cannot recognize the caricature that some are trying to paint. I have seen him testify before a crowded Senate hearing room. I have heard him quietly give counsel in a private meeting room. I know him to be a thoughtful, respectful, and competent person, a good family man, a good husband and father. I regret these attacks. I have been here 40 years. I do not know if I have ever heard a time in those 40 years when a person was so misrepresented in the attacks against him. I hope now some of those who attack him, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, would do things like join on the bulletproof vest bill and others they refuse to. I see the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader have whatever time he needs.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to use part of my time, we are finally going to vote to end the filibusters of four judicial nominees to the Federal district court in Arkansas, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and California. None of these nominees is controversial. Timothy Brooks is to fill a vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas; Pedro Delgado Hernandez is to fill a vacancy in the District of Puerto Rico; Pamela Reeves is to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of Tennessee; and Vince Chhabria is to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Northern District of California. They were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support from both the Republicans and Democrats. Incidentally, all of them have the highest rating by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary--a ``well-qualified'' rating. It is rare to have all four nominees with that high rating. I mentioned this because nominees who would normally have just gone through in a matter of weeks have been held up, and held up, and held up, and held up, for no good reason. Pamela Reeves was originally nominated in May of last year--almost 1 year ago. Timothy Brooks and Pedro Delgado Hernandez were originally nominated last June. Vince Chhabria was nominated last July. Everybody knows they all could have been confirmed last year. They all had strong Republican and Democratic support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but instead Republicans blocked their confirmation all year long until they had to be returned to the President at the end of the year. These nominees then had to be renominated and reprocessed. People who had already gone through the whole procedure had to go through it all over again. After they had been voted out with strong support by the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans again forced us to file cloture to end the filibusters of these nominations. It will have taken the Senate 8, 9, and 10 months to bring these nominees up for a vote, and that is shameful. What this does to the nominees is outrageous. These are people with distinguished careers, and all of a sudden, they have to put it on hold. Once they are nominated to be a judge, everything in their life is put on hold. Most of them have to take a big cut in pay to take the job to begin with, and then they sit there month after month after month. Everybody has told them there is no controversy to their nomination, and that when their nomination does come to a vote, they will be easily confirmed. At some point they have to say: When is this when? It was not last year when it should have been, and we are well into this year when it comes before the Senate. I have heard some Republican Senators say the filibuster is dead now that the rules have changed. That is simply wrong. The Senate Republicans are just filibustering nominees for the sake of filibustering them under different rules. They refuse to consent to vote on dozens of pending noncontroversial judicial nominees, and that means these nominees sit on the floor for months, and months, and months before we have to overcome unnecessary procedural hurdles. The result is that precious time and resources better devoted to other critical business is wasted on overcoming the dilatory tactics of Senate Republicans. We could be done with this, and debating and voting on things that are critically important to this country--everything from rebuilding the decaying bridges and roads of this Nation, to health care for the elderly, to health research and all the things we need. Instead we spend time on the pettifoggery and, I would say, total balderdash in the arguments from the other side holding up these nominees. These are the same people who shut down the Federal Government last year. This government shutdown cost the taxpayers of this country tens of billions of dollars and cost the private industry tens of billions of dollars more. They caught so much grief for this disruption that, I suppose, they do not want to have a complete shutdown of the Federal judiciary. Instead, they do it by a sort of water torture--drip, by drip, by drip. They are doing the same thing to the Federal judiciary that they did to the Federal Government, trying to close it down. It may be the case that Republicans cannot stop a noncontroversial judicial nominee from eventually receiving an up-or-down vote, but they have done a pretty darn good job of delaying five judicial nominees from filling longstanding vacancies. This kind of needless delay only hurts the American people. It is hurting the Federal judiciary. It is one of the reasons so many people in this country are angry at what happens here, when they see one thing after another delayed and slowed up. I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the qualified judicial nominees before us, and I hope the Senate Republicans will not continue to try to shut down the Federal judiciary. I hope they have learned how much the American people are angry at them for shutting down the Federal Government last year, which cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Timothy Brooks is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas. He has worked in private practice at Taylor Law Partners LLP for approximately 25 years, first as an associate (1989- 1993) and subsequently as a partner (1993-current). He has extensive experience as a litigator before both State and Federal courts, and in both civil and criminal cases. Mr. Brooks earned his J.D. with honors in 1989 from the University of Arkansas School of Law, where he served as an editor on the University of Arkansas Law Review. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Brooks well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He received the support of both of his home State senators, Senator Boozman and Senator Pryor. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014. Pedro Delgado Hernandez has worked in private practice at O'Neill & Borges LLC for nearly 15 years, first as an associate (1986-1990) and then as a partner (1990-current). From 1995 to 1996, he served as a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico. He previously served as solicitor general for Puerto Rico's Department of Justice by appointment from 1993 to 1995. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Juan Torruella, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, from 1984 to 1986. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1979 to 1985. He earned his B.S. from the University of Puerto Rico in 1979. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1983. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Hernandez well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, its highest rating. He received the support of Representative Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014. Pamela Reeves has worked in private practice since 2002 at Reeves, Herbert & Anderson, P.A., as an attorney and managing attorney. She previously worked as a partner at Watson, Hollow & Reeves, P.L.C. from 1988 to 2002. She also served as an adjunct professor for trial practice at the University of Tennessee Law School (1991-1996). Following graduation from law school, she worked as an associate at Griffin, Burkhalter, Cooper & Reeves from 1979 to 1985. She earned her J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1979. She has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, and one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Tennessee, from 2006 to 2012. If confirmed, she would be the first woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Reeves well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, its highest rating. She received the support of her home State senators, Senator Alexander and Senator Corker. The Judiciary Committee reported her by voice vote to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014. Vince Chhabria has served as a San Francisco deputy city attorney for government litigation since 2005, and has served as the co-chief of appellate litigation since 2011. He previously worked in private practice as an associate at Covington & Burling LLP from 2002 to 2004, and as an associate at Keker & Van Nest LLP in 2001. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Chhabria served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges: Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1998 to 1999; Judge James Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1999 to 2000; and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2001 to 2002. Mr. Chhabria earned his J.D., Order of the Coif, in 1998 from Berkeley Law School. If confirmed, he would serve as California's first Article III judge of South Asian descent. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Chhabria well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, its highest rating. He received the support of his home State senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again with bipartisan support on January 16, 2014. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. And I continue to hope that Senate Republicans will change course so that we can work together to confirm without further delay noncontroversial nominees to longstanding judicial vacancies. At some time reality has to catch up with the rhetoric around this place. I heard speeches earlier today on how people want to stand up for law enforcement. I would remind everybody that one of the things we have actually done in this body and the U.S. House of Representatives to help law enforcement was the bulletproof vest program. This is a bipartisan program that was started by the former Republican Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and myself to provide bulletproof vests to police departments that could not afford them. We have had some of the most gripping testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Presiding Officer may recall one police officer from a northern State who came to testify before us. He told us how much he loved being a police officer. He said the only thing he loves more than being a police officer are his parents, his wife, and his children. He said: ``If it were not for this,'' and he reached under the table and pulled up a bulletproof vest. You could see two bullets stuck in it. He said, ``If I had not been wearing this, I never would have seen my parents or my wife or my children,'' all of whom were sitting behind him. He said, ``Please keep this program going.'' His family got to visit him in the hospital where he had a couple of cracked ribs. If he had not been wearing his bulletproof vest, he said they would have been visiting him in the morgue instead. I only mentioned this story because every single Democrat has agreed to the reauthorization of the bulletproof vest bill. We have not had a single Republican step forward to say: We will stand up to protect the men and women in uniform of this country who protect us. Having served 8 years in law enforcement, I find that shameful. I say, stop trying to shut down the Federal judiciary, but also stand up for the protection of the men and women in uniform in the police departments throughout this country. From the time Senator Campbell and I first started working on this bill decades ago, this bill has always been a bipartisan bill. Decades ago, we heard testimony from a police officer talking about seeing his parents, wife, and children when he has had to face gunfire in the line of duty. Do not let us hear from the same parents, spouses, or children about why we did not protect their husband or wife, son or daughter, when we could have. Why did we play silly games when not one single Republican would step forward and say: Let's pass this bulletproof vest bill. Let's stand up for the men and women in uniform in this country. Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Is there a time for a vote?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on the nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are all painfully aware of the many resource rich countries whose leaders care far more about maintaining their grip on power and enriching themselves than addressing the needs of their people. The departed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was a good example, and in this hemisphere Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez and his successor President Nicolas Maduro stand out. President Chavez, a former army officer who was swept into power in a wave of popular discontent after decades of corrupt, elitist governments, mastered the art of deception. He was a cult personality and virulently anti-United States, who dished out favors to poor communities as he ruined the country's economy, destroyed any semblance of an independent judiciary, changed the constitution so he could hold onto power indefinitely, and used the police to intimidate the press. In the year since Chavez' death, President Maduro has tried to fill his shoes. He has adopted Chavez' divisive, anti-U.S. rhetoric, but he lacks Chavez' charisma, and the prognosis for positive change in Venezuela is increasingly bleak. Early last month a few student demonstrations quickly spiraled into the largest public protests against President Maduro since he came to power. Having been elected by a razor-thin margin, the smallest in nearly half a century, many Venezuelans hoped the stultifying reality of widespread unemployment and economic stagnation would inspire reforms. Regrettably, President Maduro did not heed the people's message. Instead, inflation has skyrocketed in the oil-rich country and food shortages have plagued local markets. Additionally, the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2013-2014 ranks Venezuela number three on its list of economies damaged by high crime rates and violence, contributing to the resolve of the thousands of Venezuelans who took to the streets in protest. From San Cristobal, to Maracaibo, to the capital city of Caracas, the demonstrations have attracted students, merchants, and middle-class professionals in a challenge to government repression and mismanagement. For several weeks images of the protests trickled out of Venezuela through various social media platforms, offering a limited, unfiltered perspective amidst the state-run media's censorship of impartial coverage. Because of the fog caused by this lack of objective information, it took nearly 2 weeks for many major U.S. news sources to arrive in country to begin coverage. The distorted, self-serving portrayal of the protestors as treasonous fascists by the Maduro administration and the state-run media has been compounded by the deaths of some 18 people and the arbitrary arrests of hundreds, and risks inciting a further crackdown against the opposition. Additionally, there have been reports that foreign journalists have been detained while trying to cover the protests, with up to 20 having been physically assaulted, according to a Colombian news source that has since been banned from Venezuela for covering the protests. The U.S. State Department's recently released Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013 describes the Maduro government's efforts to impede freedom of expression. The increasingly heavy-handed and violent actions over the last few weeks have exacerbated the situation. As one of Venezuela's most important trading partners, and as a nation whose people take note of the well-being and basic rights of other peoples in our hemisphere and beyond, the United States has an interest in ensuring that human rights are not violated with impunity. I hope President Maduro will not continue to make the mistake of other messianic, autocratic leaders who demonize their opponents. In Venezuela they represent roughly half of the population. He would do far better to work with all Venezuelans to reduce tensions and find real solutions to the country's problems. The people of his country deserve nothing less.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly, as I have several times over the past year, about the government of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, which continues its aggressive clamp down on press freedom. Most recently, political cartoonist Xavier Bonilla was reprimanded for a cartoon he drew, and the newspaper he works for, El Universo, was fined for publishing it. El Universal, one of Ecuador's most respected dailies, has been the target of one of the dozens of harassing lawsuits filed by President Correa. The cartoon by Mr. Bonilla, who goes by the pen name Bonil, depicts a police raid at the home of an investigative journalist, Fernando Villavicencio, who claimed to have documented evidence of corruption in the government. It shows the police knocking down the door to Mr. Villavicencio's house and parading out with computers and filing cabinets. A government-established media oversight agency, Superintendency of Information and Communication, SUPERCOM, used Ecuador's vague communications law to sanction both Mr. Bonilla and El Universo for publishing an ``institutional position'' over the guilt or innocence of people involved in investigations. It subsequently ordered a major investigation, required a ``correction'' to the cartoon, and fined the newspaper. In doing so, the Correa administration sent a clear message to journalists that criticism of government misconduct will not be tolerated. I have spoken several times about President Correa's attacks on press freedom and I will continue doing so as long as these restrictive laws are enforced and as long as journalists are threatened for their work. Most recently I recognized the efforts of Janet Hinostroza, an Ecuadoran investigative journalist who was honored by the Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, for her commitment to fighting for a free press. Ms. Hinostroza is continually threatened for her work exposing government corruption. Unfortunately, the harassment she and Mr. Bonilla face illustrates a norm, not an anomaly, when it comes to President Correa's attempts to intimidate and silence his critics. The absurdity of censoring a cartoonist aside, this latest attack further erodes what remains of an independent press in Ecuador. It explains why Human Rights Watch and CPJ continually rank Ecuador among the world's worst for press freedom. It is shameful, it is an embarrassment for the hemisphere, and the people of Ecuador deserve better.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for almost two decades Judge William Sessions has served as a Federal judge for the District of Vermont. Last month Judge Sessions announced he would take senior status later this year. I have worked with Senator Sanders, Representative Welch, and the Vermont Bar Association to convene a merit commission to find highly qualified candidates to serve on the Vermont District Court so I can then recommend them to the President. I know I speak on behalf of all Vermonters, no matter what their background, when I thank Judge Sessions for his years of distinguished public service and applaud him for agreeing to continue his judicial service even after he takes senior status this summer. Because of his continued dedication, Vermont will have one of the most highly respected and extraordinarily capable jurists on the Federal bench. I am proud to call Judge Sessions my friend, and I am honored to have cast my vote to confirm his nomination 18 years ago. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the completion of my remarks a Rutland Herald article written by Brent Curtis that recounts his many accomplishments. There are only two authorized district judgeships in Vermont. We are the second smallest State in the Union. So, when President Clinton asked for my recommendation to fill a vacancy in my native State, I did not take this task lightly. I knew the people of Vermont deserved a judge with integrity, intelligence, and fairness, somebody whom anybody could go before--plaintiff or defendant, rich or poor, no matter their political background--and know they would have a fair hearing. During my time in private practice as a litigant and then as State's attorney in Vermont, I experienced firsthand the tradition of legal excellence we have in Vermont. I know many Vermont lawyers who are among the best this country has to offer, and Bill Sessions earned a reputation as one of the finest trial lawyers in the State. He was widely respected by prosecutors and defense lawyers, and by the plaintiff and defense bars alike. He was praised by those who had been his co-counsel, by State and Federal judges and prosecutors, and even by those who had been his opposing counsel in court. It was a privilege to submit his name to the White House for nomination to the U.S. District Court. At the time, I told President Clinton this would be one nomination he would never have to question his judgment in making because he would have somebody who would always serve the country so well. The Senate confirmed him unanimously on August 11, 1995. Judge Sessions received his B.A. from Middlebury College in 1969. Upon his graduation with honors from the George Washington University Law School in 1972, Judge Sessions served his country in the U.S. Army from 1972 to 1977 and in active service from 1972 to 1973. He also served as a law clerk to another friend of mine, Judge Hilton Dier of the Addison County District Court. Before his service on the Federal bench, Judge Sessions contributed to his community as an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School; in private practice; as the executive director of the Addison County Youth Services Bureau; and as a public defender in Addison County, VT. During his years of service on the Federal bench, Judge Sessions has worked tirelessly to ensure that all those who come before him are treated fairly and with dignity. He is a judge who has taken seriously his commitment to both justice and the American people. He served for many years as a member of the Judicial Conference, composed of the leaders of the Federal judiciary. Judge Sessions also served for a decade on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, eventually serving as its Chairman. Three Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, nominated him to this Commission, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously each time. As a commissioner, Judge Sessions made deeply significant contributions to American sentencing policy. He played an important role in the reduction of the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. He has done vital work to improve the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This was especially important following a number of Supreme Court cases that gave judges more discretion in the sentences they impose. Even after his time on the Sentencing Commission, Judge Sessions continued to work for better sentencing policy, publishing an article in a journal of the University of Virginia School of Law that explained how the three branches of government could work together to improve sentencing in America. Judge Sessions has not forgotten what it is to be a Vermonter. He still finds time on weekends to be at farmers markets around Vermont. He is a familiar face at the booth for Blue Ledge Farm, a small Vermont dairy started by his daughter, Hannah, and son-in-law, Greg. I think of a picture of him holding a grandchild in one hand and making change for one of the customers with the other. He is one of our country's most respected jurists. He is a lawyer's lawyer and a judge's judge. Marcelle and I think of him and Abi, his wife, as dear personal friends. Our justice system has benefited a great deal from Judge Sessions' years of service. I thank Judge Sessions for all he has done as a Federal judge. I thank him for continuing to serve as a model jurist.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LEAHY. Is there a time agreement on the nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the next nominee, James Donato of California, was originally nominated in June of 2013. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I have heard from my friends on the Republican side that we should be concerned about emergency vacancies. This is an emergency vacancy. He was reported out unanimously for the first time last October. He had to be reported out a second time this year--again, unanimously. He has the strong support of the two Senators from California. So holding up and having a filibuster and going through all of that on this nomination is the kind of game playing that hurts the Federal judiciary. It is almost like the efforts made by our friends on the other side in closing down the government last year, and this is just a slow way to close down the Federal judiciary. I urge immediate consideration and confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY. I would be happy to have a voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader and the Democratic floor staff for taking the necessary steps to confirm the four judicial nominees we have just confirmed between last night and today. I am sure the people in Connecticut, Arkansas, and California are thankful that their districts now have judges to help alleviate the heavy caseload in those districts and that they will now be able to have their cases decided in a more expeditious manner. There are 28 more judicial nominees still currently pending on the Executive Calendar in States such as Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, and Wisconsin. I hope Senate Republicans will not continue to politicize the filling of judicial vacancies. Americans in those States want a functioning Federal judiciary at full capacity so they can seek and obtain justice in an expeditious manner. Vote Explanation

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, late this week, Vermont will recognize the noteworthy legacy of Ed Koren, who was recently named Vermont's second Cartoonist Laureate. A resident of Brookfield, VT, Mr. Koren is best known nationally for his distinctive creature cartoons that appear in the New Yorker. His work has also been featured in many other publications. Mr. Koren grew up in Mount Vernon, NY, and attended Columbia University, where he first began sketching cartoons for the university's magazine. Encouraged by a favorable review of one of his earliest works, Mr. Koren then dedicated himself to drawing investigative and satirical cartoons. His hard work, quick wit, and unique social commentary are evidenced in his work. In true Vermont tradition, he has also found the time to volunteer as a firefighter in his small community for the past 26 years. I am proud to recognize Ed Koren's achievement as Vermont's Cartoon Laureate. The Vermont Digger recently published a profile of this accomplished man who has adopted Vermont as his home that captures all that is so unique about his character and creativity. I ask that the article, ``Cartoonist Ed Koren earns a Vermont laurel, but don't expect him to rest on it,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in recent years, as difficult budget questions have beset the debate in Washington about how best to rein in spending while meeting our shared responsibilities to Americans, our communities, and the world, our Nation's treasures--from the monuments that dot the National Mall to the historic relics that line the halls of the Smithsonian museums--have had to shore up spending and face the reality that the government simply can't foot the bill the way it used to. Tough decisions in Washington have led many with the means to increase their charitable giving, but none compare to the generosity of David Rubenstein, businessman, family man, philanthropist. He is also a friend to many. But most importantly, he is a friend to many of America's national treasures. I cherish his friendship. You need not walk far in Washington to find Mr. Rubenstein's mark. I hear often from Vermonters who have come to Washington, for work or a family vacation, who visit such iconic places as the National Zoo, the Kennedy Center, the Library of Congress, and, of course, the Smithsonians. All bear some sign of Mr. Rubenstein's generosity. The New York Times recently featured a profile of this man and what he calls ``patriotic giving.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that profile be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I remember a dear friend to Marcelle and me. Stratton ``Stratty'' Lines was for more than 40 years the proprietor of the Oasis Diner in Burlington, VT. Throughout its history, the diner was the center of many a political discussion over a hearty breakfast or tasty lunch and lots of laughs too. At the center of all the activity was Stratty, a first-generation American who, with his family, built a successful business in downtown Burlington. One of Stratty's sons, David, describes his father as the ``quintessential Vermonter.'' Stratty was that and so much more. He was a good family man and a hard worker who cared about working people. I have many fond memories of the Oasis Diner, perhaps chief among them, eating breakfast there, celebrating with Stratty, and thanking voters the morning after I was first elected to the Senate in 1974. The diner was a popular stop among visitors to Vermont, including President Bill Clinton and Vice President Walter Mondale. During their visits and during my many trips to the diner, Stratty imparted the wisdom and common sense for which he was so well known and will be long remembered. In memory of Stratty Lines, I ask that the article by Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press, ``Oasis Diner proprietor Stratton `Stratty' Lines remembered as quintessential Vermonter,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this age of digital readers and electronic books, the fine craft of bookbinding may seem to some archaic. On the contrary: the fine skills, patience, and dedication required to mend the pages of some of our greatest treasures have become all the more critical to preserving printed books--for classics printed decades or centuries ago, to cookbooks or children's books that have been in our families for generations. At Holzer Book Bindery in Hinesburg, VT, Marianna Holzer, a third- generation bookbinder, is doing just that. Her shop is lined with leather bound books, many restored by her own hand, and hand operated cast-iron presses that help her with her handcraft. Her clients range from towns and municipalities, to personal collectors, and extend far beyond the mountains of Vermont. In 1960, her father, 30 years her mother's senior, closed down his own bindery business in Boston to settle in Putney. Marianna was in high school when, years after her father passed away, her mother set up their own bindery in the basement. Here, Marianna learned the basics of bindery from her mother, using the storied tools of her father. After studying plant and soil science at the University of Vermont, Marianna found herself working at Four Seasons Garden Center in Williston before longing for something new. She ultimately returned to her bookbinding roots, joining a small bindery in Jericho before opening her own shop in 2008. Marianna now works alongside her husband and folk musician, Rik Palieri, who assists her. Today, her challenges are even greater, as she battles multiple sclerosis. People send their books and heirlooms from around the country, seeking her dexterity and her expertise. For Marianna, it is her true love of preserving the past and the sentiment it brings others that makes her excel at her craft. She honors her family legacy by using her grandfather's logo as her own. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about this exceptional Vermonter who has dedicated her life to bringing joy to others by repairing those precious keepsakes we chose to pass on to our loved ones: ``At Holzer Book Bindery, Repairing Old Volumes Is a Labor of Love.'' [Seven Days, February 19, 2014]

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut for his kind words. Having served as attorney general of his State and in various other roles in our courts, he understands very much when he says justice delayed is justice denied. Whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant, that is true. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and Senator Murphy of Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I began the year expressing my hope that we would set aside our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming qualified nominees to fill these critical vacancies facing our Federal judiciary. I have been here with both Republican and Democratic leadership, Republican and Democratic Presidents. Never in my 40 years in the Senate have I seen such an effort to exploit every means of delay for every judicial nomination, even when a nominee is supported by both Republicans and Democrats and supported by their home State Senators. This did not happen with President Ford, with President Carter, with President Reagan, with President George H.W. Bush, with President Clinton, with President George W. Bush. This President is treated differently. Now, I have heard some Senate Republicans claim the majority leader can simply bring up these nominations for a vote whenever he chooses to do so. I think that is done with the hope that some in the press or some people watching may not understand they are hiding from the American people the fact that they are not letting the majority leader bring them up for a vote. In fact, if their claims were true, we would be voting to confirm four district court judges tonight. Instead, the Senate Republicans are deliberately obstructing and placing roadblocks so that each and every confirmation takes longer. It is very similar to what they did when they caused the needless and costly partial shutdown of the government. They shut down the government. Here, they are trying to shut down the judiciary. This pointless obstruction is why Congress is so unpopular with the American people. They make it as difficult as possible to respond to the needs of our Federal judiciary. This has been going on since President Obama first took office in 2009. In fact, within a short time after the President was sworn in, Republicans filibustered his very first judicial nominee. That has never been done for any President of either party. Incidentally, that judicial nominee, who had the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, had the strong support of the senior Senator from his State, who was also the senior Republican then serving in the Senate. The most senior Republican Senator supported the nomination, but the Republican leadership said: No. We have to filibuster and block the nomination because, after all, it was President Obama's nomination, not President Bush's nomination. It was around this time that the Republican leader said his primary goal was for President Obama to fail. Now, if a Democrat had said that about a Republican President, we would have heard about it ad infinitum. We were forced to change the Senate Rules. This was something I was very reluctant to see done, but we did it because we have to get past this obstruction. Otherwise, our Federal judiciary would grind to a halt in many parts of the country. The worst part about it is when there are judicial nominees with the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators, but a tiny group in their leadership says: Oh, no, we cannot possibly vote on these. It might give President Obama a victory. This ignores the fact that he was elected twice by pretty significant margins. It also ignores the fact that the Federal judiciary has always been kept out of partisan politics. Instead, they do it to politicize the Federal judiciary more than I have seen in my 40 years here. It is a shame. It should stop. Let's start acting like grownups in the Senate, not like children fighting in a sandbox. And then they wonder why the American people are so turned off. First they close down the Federal Government; now they are, by increments, closing down the Federal courts. Tonight I hope we will vote to end the filibusters of four judicial nominees to Federal district courts in Connecticut, Arkansas, and California. Each of these nominees--Jeffrey Meyer to fill a vacancy to the District of Connecticut; James Maxwell Moody, Jr., to fill a vacancy to the Eastern District of Arkansas; and James Donato and Beth Labson Freeman to fill judicial emergency vacancies to the Northern District of California--were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the unanimous support of Republicans and Democrats. Yet, they have languished on the Senate floor for months. Because of Republican obstruction we are again wasting precious time to overcome procedural hurdles just to have an up-or-down vote on these worthy nominees. I began the year expressing my hope that we would set aside our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming qualified nominees to fill critical vacancies facing our Federal Judiciary. Instead, it appears that Senate Republicans have decided to double down and to further exhaust every means of delay at their disposal, even when a nominee is supported by those on both sides of the aisle and supported by both home State Senators. A few weeks ago, prior to recessing, Senator Pryor asked for unanimous consent to vote on the nominations of Timothy Brooks and James Moody to fill judicial vacancies in the Western and Eastern Districts of Arkansas. Both of these nominees had the bipartisan support of their home State senators, as well as the bipartisan support of every single member of the Judiciary Committee. Both these nominees could and should have been confirmed last year, as they were originally voted out of committee by voice vote last October and November, respectively. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans refused to consent to a vote on their nominations as the year ended. This meant that these nominees had to be re-nominated and re-processed through committee. Having jumped through all of these additional hurdles, these nominees still cannot get a vote on their nominations as Senate Republicans continue to object. Senate Republicans claim that the majority leader himself can bring up these nominations for a vote whenever he chooses to do so. But what the Republicans are hiding from the American people is that they are deliberately obstructing and placing roadblocks so that each and every confirmation takes as long as humanly possible. This illustrates why Congress is so unpopular with the American people. Here, you have lawmakers deliberately making it as difficult as possible to do something to address the needs of our Federal Judiciary. Republicans may see this as retribution for the rules change that occurred last year, but their steadfast obstruction only hurts the American people. More than a month into the new year, we have confirmed just one judicial nominee. This is the case even though there are currently 96 judicial vacancies, 39 of which have been deemed emergency vacancies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In stark contrast, there were only 56 judicial vacancies at the same point in President Bush's tenure. The comparison is even more troubling when you consider the 32 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. We could lower the number of judicial vacancies today to 64 if Senate Republicans would consent to voting on the pending nominees. We have not had fewer than 70 vacancies since May 2009, more than 4 years ago. And for most of President Obama's tenure in office, judicial vacancies have continued to hover around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to votes on these nominations. There are no excuses for the delays except sheer partisanship. All but 3 of the 32 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. Despite the self-imposed delays by Republicans, who demanded these nominees be sent back to the President to be re-nominated and re- processed through committee, the Judiciary Committee has worked hard to again report them out of committee. The only delay that is holding them up is the Republicans who have continuously objected to a vote on their nominations. Almost all of the judicial nominees pending before the full Senate are uncontroversial. In fact, of the 32 judicial nominees currently pending, 30 were voted out of committee with bipartisan support. It is clear that Senate Republicans have decided to use the rules change as another excuse to further accomplish their partial government shut down. Before the rules change, Senate Republicans used anonymous holds to delay confirming qualified judicial nominees, and dragged their feet every step of the way to slow down the confirmation process. Senate Democrats changed the rules precisely because of these delay tactics, which were causing great harm to the judicial system and negatively impacting those Americans who were seeking justice in our Federal courts. The American people who have sought to obtain justice in our Federal courts deserve speedy and prompt justice. The petty partisan tactics on display tonight are not even worthy of the playgrounds of our children and grandchildren, let alone the United States Senate. It used to be that nominees for U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal were confirmed by unanimous consent without taking up any floor time. However, Republicans have now decided that they will delay the confirmation of these nominees as well. Once again, the only individuals who are hurt by these tit-for-tat political games are the American people. When a State lacks the necessary law enforcement officers they need to keep its streets safe from criminals, it is the American people that are hurt. I hope that Senate Republicans will re- think this misguided strategy of obstruction and do-nothingness. Shortly, I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the following qualified judicial nominees: Jeffrey Meyer is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. He has served since 2006 as a professor of law at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and since 2010 as a visiting professor of law at Yale Law School. He served as senior counsel to the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Connecticut from 1995 to 2004, and as appeals chief from 2000 to 2004. Prior to his work as a Federal prosecutor, he worked as an associate at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC from 1993 to 1995, and at Shearman & Sterling LLP in 1993, and from 1990 to 1991. He worked as a staff attorney for Vermont Legal Aid from 1992 to 1993. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges, including Justice Harry Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Donald Ross of the Eighth Circuit, and Judge James Oakes of the second Circuit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Meyer well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, its highest rating. He has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last September, and once again, last month. Judge James Moody is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Since 2003, he has served as a circuit court judge in Arkansas's Sixth Judicial Circuit. He has presided over 1,000 cases in the Arkansas State Court Systems. He previously worked in private practice at Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP as a partner from 1994 to 2003, and as an associate from 1989 to 1994. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Moody well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He has the strong bipartisan support of both his home State Senators, Senator Pryor and Senator Boozman. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last November, and once again, last month. James Donato is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 2009, he has worked in private practice as a partner at Sherman & Sterling LLP. He has served pro bono as a court appointed mediator in the Northern District of California since 2002, handling civil rights actions against state and local law enforcement departments. He previously worked as a Partner at Cooley LLP from 1998 to 2009, and as a special counsel from 1996 to 1998. He served as a deputy city attorney in the Trial Division of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office from 1993 to 1996, and as an Associate at Morrison & Foerster LLP from 1990 to 1993. Following his graduation from Stanford Law School, he clerked for Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Donato earned his B.A. in 1983 from the University of California, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his M.A. in history in 1984 at Harvard University, and his J.D. in 1988 from Stanford Law School, where he served as senior editor of the Stanford Law Review. He has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last October, and once again, last month. Judge Beth Freeman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 2001, she has served as a California State judge in San Mateo County Superior Court. She served as the presiding judge from 2011 to 2012. During her 12 years on the bench, she has presided over approximately 150 jury trials and over a thousand bench trials. She previously served as a deputy county counsel to the San Mateo County Counsel's Office from 1983 to 2001. She worked in private practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson in Washington, DC as an associate attorney from 1979 to 1981. Judge Freeman earned her B.A. with distinction from the University of California, Berkeley in 1976. She earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. She has the strong support of both her home State Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein. She was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last October, and once again, last month. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor.