Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has once again passed a resolution commemorating our Nation's law enforcement officers and National Peace Officers Memorial Day. The Senate's official recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day is a tradition I am proud to support each year.

In 2010, 158 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. We honor their memory. Each year, we commemorate the bravery of the many law enforcement officers and peace officers who deserve our thanks and support. National Peace Officers Memorial Day is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to provide them with the tools they need to stay safe and to do their jobs as effectively as they can.

There are more than 900,000 men and women at work protecting our communities, our schools, and our children. They investigate and apprehend the most violent criminals and strive to keep our communities safe and secure. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, the names of 18,983 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice year after year by those members of our police forces. More than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington in the days leading up to May 15 to join with the families of their fallen comrades. It is right that the Senate show its respect on this occasion, and I am proud to honor their service and their memory.

S. Res. 169

Madam President, I hope that all Senators have had a chance to consider the remarks of the Senators from Rhode Island on this nomination. I do not think anyone could listen to the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island yesterday and today and come away doing anything other than voting for cloture. Likewise, Senator Whitehouse, who spoke this morning and has shepherded this nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee, has done an outstanding job in his statement not only this week but throughout the course of this nomination, which now extends into a second year. They have set forth not only the merits of this nominee, but also what is at stake for the Senate and the country if Senate Republicans take the virtually unprecedented action of filibustering a Federal district court nominee.

Jack McConnell has bipartisan support from those in his home State. Leading Republican figures in Rhode Island have endorsed his nomination. They include First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya; Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian; Rhode Island Chief Justice Joseph Weisberger; former Rhode Island Attorneys General Jeffrey Pine and Arlene Violet; former Director of the Rhode Island Department of Business Barry Hittner; former Rhode Island Republican Party Vice-Chair John M. Harpootian; and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Fisher.

With more than 25 years of experience as an outstanding litigator in private practice, Mr. McConnell has been endorsed by the Providence Journal, which wrote:

In his legal work and community leadership [he] has shown

that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion,

and independence to be a distinguished jurist.

That is what Senator Reed talked about, the nominee's qualifications, experience, temperament, integrity, and character.

Just a few years ago, Republican Senators argued that filibusters of judicial nominees were unconstitutional, and that every nominee was entitled to an up-or-down vote. Of course, they said that with a Republican President. Now suddenly things have changed. At that time, a number of Republican Senators joined in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head off the ``nuclear option'' and agreed that nominees should only be filibustered under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' No one could seriously argue that this Federal district court nomination presents anything approaching ``extraordinary circumstances'' that might justify a filibuster to prevent a vote on the nomination.

It would be unfortunate if Senators were to knuckle under to the demand for a filibuster by special interest business lobbies. Mr. McConnell should not be filibustered for being a good lawyer, yet that is at the root of any opposition. The corporate lobby opposes him because he successfully represented plaintiffs, including the State of Rhode Island itself, in lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers. Some here in the Senate may support the lead paint industry. That is their right. I support the right of this attorney to bring legal claims based on the poisoning of children by the lead in paint and to hold those responsible accountable. You can support the lead paint manufacturers or you can support the children who were poisoned. I will stand with the children. That is what Mr. McConnell did. That is why the business lobbies oppose him. No Senator should oppose Mr. McConnell for doing what lawyers do and vigorously representing his clients in lawsuits. That is not a justification to filibuster this nomination. Mr. McConnell has testified and demonstrated that he understands the differences between the role of the judge and the role of an advocate for one of the parties.

With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 13 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. No one should be playing partisan games and obstructing while vacancies remain above 90 in the Federal courts around the country. With one out of every nine Federal judgeships still vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country at 93, there is serious work to be done.

I have made it a practice as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to respect the views of home State Senators from both sides of the aisle. I have encouraged President Obama to work with home State Senators from both sides of the aisle. Republican Senators used to defer to home State Senators on Federal district court nominations. That was their justification for voting both for or against nominations during the last several years. But if Senate Republicans abandon that deference and engage in a filibuster of this Federal district court nominee, and ignore the strongly held views of home State Senators, then they will be undercutting all those understandings and practices.

When home State Senators as widely respected and as serious about the rule of law as the Senators from Rhode Island endorse a Federal district court

nominee, that nominee should not be filibustered. They never have been. I have been here 37 years. We used to treat each other, as well as such nominees willing to serve on the bench, with respect. I hope that today the Senate will return to that tradition. I trust that Senate Republicans will not go down the dark path on which they are headed.

Senator Reed spoke yesterday of the precipice on which the Senate is poised. Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Schumer have spoken eloquently on this issue as well. I urge all Senators, Senators on both sides of the aisle, to do the right thing to honor our constitutional role and traditions, and to vote in favor of ending this filibuster so that the nomination of Jack McConnell can then be considered on the merits and voted up or down.

I reserve the balance of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate took a step toward restoring a longstanding tradition of deference to home state Senators with regard to Federal District Court nominations. The Senate turned away from what Senator Reed rightly called a precipice. Eleven Republican Senators joined in voting to end a filibuster of the nomination of Jack McConnell to the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. A supermajority of the Senate came together to reject a new standard, which I believe is being unfairly applied to President Obama's district court nominees. Now, more than a year after his nomination, nearly a year after his confirmation hearing, and after having had his nomination reported positively by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee three times, the nomination of Jack McConnell will finally have an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

The Senate should have debate on judicial nominations, and Senators should be free to vote for or against any nomination. A few hours ago the Senate voted to invoke cloture and now we are proceeding to hold a final confirmation vote on this nomination.

There was no need for cloture to be filed on this nomination. There were no ``extraordinary circumstances'' that held up this nomination for over a year. Why was the Senate not able to reach a time agreement to debate and vote on this nomination last year? It was the obstruction that prevented us from doing so. It was wrong for the Senate to knuckle under to business lobbies and it was right for the Senate to reject that opposition.

In fact, in the days leading up to the filibuster vote and in the hours since, no great number of Senators has spoken in opposition to this nomination. Only a handful of Senators from the minority leadership spoke at all. Only one such Senator has spoken in opposition since cloture was invoked.

With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 13 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. No one should be playing partisan games and obstructing while vacancies remain above 90 in the Federal courts around the country. With one out of every nine Federal judgeships still vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country at 93, there is serious work to be done.

I will support the nomination of Jack McConnell, just as I have each of the three times it was before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. McConnell is an outstanding lawyer. He is supported by his home State Senators, Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse. Each has spoken passionately and persuasively in support of his nomination.

As I noted earlier, Mr. McConnell's nomination has been reported by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee three times. His nomination also has bipartisan support from those in his home State. Leading Republican figures in Rhode Island have endorsed his nomination. They include First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya; Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian; Rhode Island Chief Justice Joseph Weisberger; former Rhode Island Attorneys General Jeffrey Pine and Arlene Violet; former Director of the Rhode Island Department of Business Barry Hittner; former Rhode Island Republican Party Vice-Chair John M. Harpootian; and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Fisher.

The strident opposition to this nomination has been fueled by the corporate lobby, who oppose Jack McConnell because he is a good lawyer. They oppose him because he successfully represented plaintiffs, including the State of Rhode Island, in lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers. Some in the Senate may support the lead paint industry. Some in the Senate may oppose those who wish to hold lead paint companies accountable for poisoning children. That is their right. But as I said earlier in opposing the filibuster of this nomination, nobody should oppose Mr. McConnell for doing what lawyers do--vigorously represent clients.

I also hope no Senator opposes this nomination based on what I believe to be a distortion of Mr. McConnell's testimony before the committee. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take seriously the obligation of nominees appearing before the Committee to be truthful. I would be the first Senator to raise an issue if there were any legitimate question as to the accuracy of Mr. McConnell's testimony. But there is not.

Far from establishing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the committee, the deposition transcript

cited by some who oppose his nomination in fact validates Mr. McConnell's testimony to the committee. There has been no inconsistency in Mr. McConnell's testimony, either to the committee or in sworn testimony in a deposition. Jack McConnell is not a party to the lawsuit. He has been accused of no wrongdoing. There is no basis to believe that Mr. McConnell did not answer questions from members of the committee truthfully. Some Senators may feel strongly that Mr. McConnell and his firm were wrong to sue lead paint companies, but there is simply no basis for believing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the committee. I hope other Senators will reject those conclusions.

With more than 25 years of experience as an outstanding litigator in private practice, Mr. McConnell has been endorsed by The Providence Journal, which wrote: ``In his legal work and community leadership [he] has shown that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion, and independence to be a distinguished jurist.'' This debate should focus on Mr. McConnell's qualifications, experience, temperament, integrity, and character. Any fair evaluation of his qualifications would reveal a nominee worthy of confirmation.

I congratulate Jack McConnell and his family on his confirmation today. I commend Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse for their steadfast support and all they have done to ensure that the Senate vote on this nomination.

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

Mr. President, last night, Majority Leader Reid was forced to file another cloture petition on a Federal judicial nominee, the fifth required to be filed during President Obama's term. Among the highly qualified nominees being stalled is Jack McConnell, who is nominated to a vacancy on the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

I am concerned that we have to file cloture on nominations that should simply have an up-or-down vote. I hope we are not returning to the situation we had during the Clinton administration when my friends on the Republican side of the aisle pocket filibustered 61 of his nominees.

We tried to change that in the 17 months I was chairman during the first 2 years of President Bush's first term when I moved 100 of President Bush's nominees through the Senate. In the remaining 2\1/2\ years, the Republicans were in charge, and the Senate confirmed another 105. We tried to change what had been an unfortunate procedure. I hope we are not going back to that.

Jack McConnell has the strong support of his home State Senators, bipartisan support from those in his home State, and his nomination has been reported favorably by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee multiple times. This nomination is one of many that have been stranded on the Senate's Executive Calendar for many months stalled by Republican objection to proceeding to debate and vote.

Just a few years ago, Republican Senators argued that filibusters of judicial nominees were unconstitutional, and that every nominee was entitled to an up-or-down vote. They unsuccessfully filibustered President Obama's first judicial nominee, and have stalled many others. Cloture is now being required to overcome another in a series of Republican filibusters in order to vote up or down on a judicial nominee at a time when extensive, and extended, judicial vacancies are creating a crisis for the Federal justice system and all Americans.

With these filibusters, the Senate's Republican leadership seems determined to set a new standard for obstruction of judicial nominations. I cannot recall a single instance in which a President's judicial nomination to a Federal trial court, a Federal district court, was blocked by a filibuster.

When I came to the Senate, the President of the United States was Gerald Ford, whose statue we just unveiled in the Rotunda. We did not filibuster any of his Federal district court nominees. We did not filibuster any of President Jimmy Carter's district court nominees. We did not filibuster any of President George H. W. Bush's district court nominees.

We did not filibuster on the floor any of President Clinton's or any of President George W. Bush's nominees. Somehow the rules have changed for President Obama.

This is troubling as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but also troubling to the Federal judiciary nationwide. So I did a little research. Looking back over the last six decades, I found only three district court nominations--three in over 60 years--on which cloture was even filed. For two of those, the cloture petitions were withdrawn after procedural issues were resolved. For a single one, the Senate voted on cloture and it was invoked. All three of those nominations were confirmed. I trust that the nomination of Jack McConnell will also be confirmed.

From the start of President Obama's term, Republican Senators have applied a heightened and unfair standard to President Obama's district court nominees. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference on district court nominees to the home State Senators who know the needs of their States best. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama's highly qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction.

That approach is a serious break from the Senate's practice of advice and consent. Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Out of these 2,100 nominees, only five have been reported by party-line votes. Only five total in the last 65 years. Four of these five party-line votes have been against President Obama's highly qualified district court nominees. Indeed, only 19 of those 2,100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split rollcall vote at all, and five of those, more than a quarter, have been President Obama's nominees, including Mr. McConnell.

Democrats never applied this standard to President Bush's district court nominees, whether in the majority or the minority. And certainly, there were nominees to the district court put forth by that administration that were considered ideologues. All told, in 8 years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district court nomination by a party line vote. Somehow President Obama is being treated differently than any President, Democratic or Republican, before him.

That was the controversial nomination of Leon Holmes, which Senators opposed because of the nominee's strident, intemperate, and insensitive public statements over the years. Judge Holmes argued that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami,'' and called concerns about pregnant rape victims ``trivialities.'' He suggested that it was correct to say that slavery was just God's way of teaching White people the value of servitude. He wrote that he did not believe the Constitution ``is made for people of fundamentally differing views.'' We opposed Judge Holmes nomination, strongly, but we did not block it from consideration by the Senate. He was not filibustered. His nomination was confirmed without the need for a cloture vote.

With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 13 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. No one should be playing partisan games and obstructing while vacancies remain above 90 in the Federal courts around the country. With one out of every nine Federal judgeships still vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country at 93, there is serious work to be done.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans seem intent on continuing with the practices they began when President Obama first took office, engaging in narrow, partisan attacks on his judicial nominations.

These unfair attacks started with President Obama's very first judicial nomination, David Hamilton of Indiana, a 15-year veteran of the Federal bench. President Obama nominated Judge Hamilton in March 2009, after consultation with the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, who then strongly supported the nomination. Rather than welcome the nomination as an attempt by President

Obama to step away from the ideological battles of the past, Senate Republicans ignored Senator Lugar's support, caricaturing Judge Hamilton's record and filibustering his nomination. The Senate was not able to have an up-or-down vote on his nomination until we overcame a Republican filibuster 8 months after he was nominated. After rejecting the filibuster with an overwhelming vote of 70 to 29, Judge Hamilton was confirmed.

Republican Senators who just a few years ago protested that such filibusters were unconstitutional, Republican Senators who joined in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head off the ``nuclear option'' and agreed that nominees should only be filibustered under ``extraordinary circumstances,'' abandoned all that they said they stood for and joined together in an attempt to prevent an up-or-down vote on President Obama's very first judicial nominee.

In other words, the standard they said should be applied to every single President in the history of this country suddenly was changed when this President came in. They chose to ignore their own standards outlined in a letter sent to President Obama not long after he took office, and before he had made a single judicial nomination, in which Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster any nomination made without consultation. Of course, President Obama did consult with the senior- most Republican Senator on a nomination to fill a vacancy in his home State, but still they filibustered. In fact, he has consistently consulted with home State Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. It makes you wonder what it is about President Obama which makes Republicans want to change the rules for him, rules that existed for every President prior to him.

Since the filibuster of Judge Hamilton, Senate Republicans have required the majority leader to file cloture on three more highly qualified circuit court nominees. This is a far cry from Republican insistence that every nominee is required by the Constitution to have an up-or-down vote, or even from the ``extraordinary circumstances'' Republican Senators now claim to be the basis for a filibuster.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes more. I know there are other Senators waiting to speak.

No Senator could claim the circumstances surrounding the filibusters of President Obama's circuit court nominations to be extraordinary. Republicans filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan, a nominee with nearly 30 years of judicial experience, and who had the distinction of being the first woman to hold a number of important judicial roles in Virginia. She was ultimately confirmed 99-0 as the first woman from Virginia to serve on the Fourth Circuit. Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Judge Thomas Vanaskie, whose 16 years of experience as a Federal district court judge in Pennsylvania are now being used in service to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, after his overwhelming confirmation. Senate Republicans filibustered Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit, another nominee with 16 years of experience as a Federal district court judge. He is now the only active Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, after being confirmed unanimously.

In addition, the Republicans' across-the-board practice of refusing consent and delaying consideration of even nominations with unanimous support has led to a steady backlog of pending nominations. The refusal of Republicans to give consent to consideration meant that 19 judicial nominations were stranded on the Senate's Executive Calendar at the end of last Congress. There are 13 judicial nominations now on the calendar that Democrats are prepared to consider.

Each of these nominations should be considered without unnecessary delay. If we do that, we can reduce the judicial vacancies to 80 for the first time since July 2009. Yet we are forced to overcome filibusters even to have a debate and vote on district court nominations.

These filibusters stand in stark contrast to the views of Republican Senators about the role of the Senate in considering judicial nominees when the President was from their own party. In 2005, when the Republican majority threatened to blow up the Senate to ensure up-or- down votes for each of President Bush's judicial nominations, Senator McConnell, then the Republican whip, said:

Any President's judicial nominees should receive careful

consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple

up-or-down vote. . . . It's time to move away from advise and

obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are

high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at

stake.

Other Republican Senators made similar statements back then. Many declared that they would never support the filibuster of a judicial nomination. Others subscribed to the standard that the so-called gang of 14 formulated that they would only filibuster in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' The only extraordinary circumstance in this case is the judicial vacancies crisis that has prompted the President, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, bar associations and many others to call for prompt consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees.

Yet rather than applying consistent standards and debating and voting on judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee, we see Republican Senators adopting a double standard and engaging in a dramatic break from the Senate's tradition by filibustering this district court nomination.

Jack McConnell is an outstanding lawyer. President Obama has nominated him three times to serve as a Federal district court judge in Rhode Island. With more than 25 years of experience as a lawyer in private practice, Mr. McConnell has the strong support of both Rhode Island Senators, Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse. He has been reported by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee three times.

Individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum in that State have called for Mr. McConnell's confirmation. The Providence Journal endorsed his nomination by saying

in his legal work and community leadership [he] has shown

that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion,

and independence to be a distinguished jurist.

Leading Republican figures in Rhode Island have endorsed his nomination. They include First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya; Warick Mayor Scott Avedisian; Rhode Island Chief Justice Joseph Weisberger; former Rhode Island Attorney General Jeffrey Pine; former Director of the Rhode Island Department of Business, Barry Hittner; former Rhode Island Republican Party Vice-Chair John M. Harpootian; and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Fisher.

Some oppose him because he successfully represented plaintiffs, including the State of Rhode Island itself, in lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers. Some here in the Senate may support the lead paint industry. That is their right. I support those who want to go after the people who poison children. That is what Mr. McConnell did. But nobody should oppose Mr. McConnell for doing what lawyers do and vigorously representing his clients in those lawsuits.

The Senate has finally begun to debate this nomination, and some have wasted no time in coming to the Floor and distorting, I believe, Mr. McConnell's testimony before the committee. I disagree with Senator Cornyn's characterization of Mr. McConnell's testimony. As chairman, I take seriously the obligation of nominees appearing before the Judiciary Committee to be truthful. I would be the first Senator to raise an issue if there were any legitimate question as to the accuracy of Mr. McConnell's testimony. But there is not.

The accusation stems from Mr. McConnell's recent testimony as a witness deposed in a lawsuit brought by one of the paint companies engaged in litigation with Mr. McConnell's client. That lawsuit alleges that Motley Rice, the law firm where Mr. McConnell is employed, improperly obtained a 34-page confidential company document from one of the lead paint companies. Mr. McConnell is not a party to the lawsuit, but was deposed last September only as a witness. His answers at his

deposition concerning his knowledge of the confidential document were the same as his responses to written questions from Senator Kyl following his hearing nearly a year ago, and the same as his responses to Senator Lee in written questions this February. At no time has there been a suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr. McConnell in this lawsuit.

Far from establishing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the committee, the deposition transcript obtained by the Committee after it was unsealed by the Court only further validates Mr. McConnell's account of his knowledge of this document. To believe that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the committee, some Senators would have to disbelieve not just his answers to written questions from committee members, but also Mr. McConnell's sworn testimony as a witness being deposed in a lawsuit. Some Senators may feel strongly that Mr. McConnell and his firm were wrong to sue lead paint companies, but there is simply no basis believing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the committee. I reject those conclusions.

These Republican filibusters of district court nominations are unprecedented. The consequences for the American people and their access to justice in our Federal courts are real. I urge the Senate to reject these efforts and reject this filibuster.

Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues in giving me the extra time, the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is an old saying that ``where there is a will there is a way.'' That was very true of the many pieces of legislation I worked on as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Senate Agriculture Committee has proven time and again that Congress can work together when it wants to get a job done.

But I have to share with you that we had a secret weapon, at least when it came to the farm bill nutrition titles and the child nutrition bills. I know that we would have had a much tougher time getting that job done successfully without the assistance and technical expertise of Joe Richardson of the Congressional Research Service. Since 1971 Joe has played an important part of nutrition policy discussions and has played a key role behind the scenes working on countless pieces of legislation over these past four decades, including seven farm bills. As a member of the Agriculture Committee during most of those 40 years, including turns as chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I have been fortunate to benefit innumerable times from Joe's institutional memory and impressive encyclopedic knowledge of our Nation's critical nutrition programs.

Very few Americans have ever heard about the Congressional Research Service, but for the men and women who served in the U.S. Senate and for all of our staff, we know the important role that this branch of the Library of Congress plays. The Congressional Service is a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress and works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. The Congressional Research Service, Congress, and the American people have been well served by Joe Richardson and his impressive public career.

For the last four decades Joe Richardson has gone above and beyond to serve the Senate and House of Representatives with his objective and always helpful information and often 24 hours a day if needed. I know that Members of both sides of the aisle have the highest regard for his work, attention to detail, and dedication.

With the retirement of Joe Richardson, we are losing an important perspective and historical knowledge that I fear that no other single person will be able to fill. To say that he will be missed is a true understatement. While I wish Joe all the best in retirement, I certainly hope that he will make sure his replacement at the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Agriculture Committee still know how to get ahold of him during development of the next farm bill.

Madam President, today, people from across the country and around the world celebrate World Press Freedom Day--a time to commemorate and honor the principles of freedom of expression. World Press Freedom Day was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 and provides an important opportunity for us all to remember the journalists and other members of the news media--of all nationalities--who have sacrificed their personal safety, and in some cases their lives, to ensure the free flow of information to the public.

The Nation's Founders prized and protected a free and vibrant press. Its prominence is found in the first amendment of the Constitution. Since the founding of this great Nation, American journalists have courageously documented volatile turning points in our history and the world's history. Elijah Lovejoy, the first of too many American journalists who have paid the ultimate price in service to press freedom, remains a stalwart figure in media history, even today.

The International Federation of Journalists reports that at least 94 journalists and other members of the media have been killed in the line of duty during 2010. Countless others have been detained or arrested simply for performing their professional duties.

In recent months, we have witnessed the troubling case of American and foreign journalists being detained, assaulted, and even killed in their efforts to tell the world about the democratic uprisings in the Middle East. Last month, Oscar-nominated war-film director and photojournalist Tim Hetherington and photojournalist Chris Hondros were both killed while reporting on a battle between Libyan Government forces and rebels in the city of Misrata. In February, CBS war correspondent Lara Logan was brutally attacked and sexually assaulted while reporting on the historic uprising in Egypt. The recent news that Osama bin Laden has been killed--a price paid for his crimes against the American people and the world--has focused even more attention on the unrest in the Middle East. The efforts of journalists and members of the media in that region now have even greater significance.

Preserving press freedoms and freedom of expression remains one of my highest legislative priorities as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That is why I have once again joined with Republican Senator John Cornyn to introduce the Faster FOIA Act. This bill would create a bipartisan Commission

to help ensure that the Freedom of Information Act one of the most important tools by which the press can obtain critical information about what our government is doing is not hindered by excessive delays.

A few days ago, President Obama observed that ``in the last months, we've seen journalists threatened, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed simply for doing their best to bring us the story, to give people a voice, and to hold leaders accountable. And through it all, we've seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea that no one should be silenced, and everyone deserves to know the truth.''

As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, we are reminded that an open and accountable society comes with not only the right of its citizens to know the truth but the duty to empower themselves with that knowledge. All of us--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--have an interest in preserving press freedoms and protecting the public's right to know. Enacting the Faster FOIA Act will help to accomplish this goal. For this reason, I strongly encourage all Members to join me in celebrating World Press Freedom Day and in supporting this very important bipartisan bill.

Madam President, I recently joined Senator Durbin and Senator Graham at an important Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the civil rights of American Muslims. This bipartisan hearing was a positive statement from the committee that its members believe strongly that all Americans enjoy the rights and freedoms provided by our Constitution and our civil rights laws.

Today, I wanted to highlight a recent column written by the U.S. attorney in Cleveland, OH, Steven Dettelbach, which addressed the same subject. As one of our leading Federal prosecutors, Mr. Dettelbach is known for protecting the people of northern Ohio by enforcing our Federal laws. But he is also known for his wise counsel which is no doubt why the Attorney General selected him to serve on his advisory committee.

At the Attorney General's direction, several U.S. attorneys have been trying to better understand the needs of American Muslims. This is a laudable initiative, given that there have been attacks targeting the American Muslim community in the past few years.

To make matters worse, some leaders have sought to sow fear and divisiveness against American Muslims. Fanning the flames of hate against those with different faith traditions runs contrary to our American values because this Nation was founded in large part on the importance of religious freedom.

In his April 29 piece, Mr. Dettelbach wrote, ``Our enemies seek not only to kill our citizens and destroy our cities, they also want to attack the most fundamental American principle of all--our free, open and diverse society. We cannot and will not let them succeed.''

I could not agree more.

All Americans deserve civil rights protections and the freedoms provided in the Constitution. This does not end with the vital protections afforded by the first amendment. It continues to ensure due process and equal protection. It is bolstered by important civil rights laws that we have passed to protect the practice of religion without discrimination.

Religious freedom has long been a bipartisan issue in the Senate, but more importantly it has been a consistent American value. American Muslims, like all Americans, must be protected by the rule of law that upholds these constitutional and statutory protections.

I agree with Mr. Dettelbach when he noted that, ``[w]e find ourselves facing foreign-based terrorists, including al-Qaida, seeking to radicalize people here in the United States in new ways. Using sleek ad campaigns on the Internet, these terrorists try to recruit Americans to attack their neighbors. We must counter these efforts, but must do it wisely and without sacrificing our ideals. ``

As the President said when he announced the news that the world's No. 1 terrorist was dead, Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He had killed scores of Muslims. I hope that in the coming days, we will not see misguided passions lead to more attacks on American Muslims. In order to live up to our American values we must protect all Americans from attack. I thank the President and the Attorney General for their unwavering leadership on civil rights issues.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dettelbach's short article be printed in the Record. I hope all Senators will read it.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the brave men and women of the emergency medical services, EMS, profession all across the country who dedicate their lives to providing lifesaving health care and first responder services to people in need.

In particular, I would like to recognize the 81 EMS professionals being recognized today by the American Ambulance Association as ``Stars of Life.'' These 81 Stars of Life will be on Capitol Hill for the next couple of days, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to take the time to meet with these exceptional individuals.

Every year, the dispatch of an ambulance is the first response to millions of medical emergencies. Often, the survival of a patient is enhanced by the prompt medical attention provided by paramedics and emergency medical technicians, EMTs, prior to the arrival at an emergency room. As a result of the selfless acts of these courageous and devoted men and women, the lives of thousands of Americans are saved each year. While these professionals do not expect to receive recognition for their work, they deserve our outmost gratitude.

For the past 20 years, the American Ambulance Association has honored those paramedics, EMTs, dispatchers, and other ambulance service personnel who exemplify what is best about the EMS field. The American Ambulance Association has appropriately designated these individuals as ``Stars of Life.'' Past Stars of Life have included paramedics and EMTs who were part of the rescue efforts at the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center or provided evacuation and response to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the recent flooding and storms in the South and Midwest. Of equal importance, this program also pays tribute to those ambulance service personnel whose heroic acts or community service activities may not have made the news but were just as meaningful to the people they aided. I consider myself fortunate to have met with many Vermont paramedics and EMTs over the years, and I have heard firsthand accounts of the tireless efforts that they perform on a daily basis for their communities. They are truly America's health care safety net.

One of the Stars of Life from Vermont left a lasting impression on me. His name was Dale Long--a 2008 Stars of Life awardee. Just several weeks after I had the opportunity to meet him, Dale was killed in the line of duty as a paramedic with the Bennington Rescue Squad. Since Dale was employed by a private nonprofit agency, he was not covered by the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officer Benefit, PSOB, program--even though his agency is the 9-1-1 emergency ambulance service agency for Bennington, VT. In honor of Dale, I introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Services Provider Protection Act, S. 385, which would make paramedics and EMTs who work for a private nonprofit EMS agency eligible for the PSOB program. In February, the Senate unanimously approved the Dale Long Act as an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill, and I am hopeful that the Dale Long provision will be retained in the final conference report.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the 2011 American Ambulance Association Stars of Life honorees be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted quickly to pass a resolution designating May 2011 as National Inventors Month. On May 4, the National Inventors Hall of Fame, in partnership with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will hold its 39th Annual National Inventors Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony.

Our Nation's inventors are the catalyst of our economy. Their inventions, when protected by a strong, efficient, and balanced patent system lead to new products and processes for American consumers and new jobs for American workers.

Earlier this year, the United States Senate passed overwhelmingly the America Invents Act, to ensure that our Nation's inventors and innovators have a 21st Century patent system that speeds high quality patents to market. The United States House Committee on the Judiciary recently voted to approve a very similar version of this legislation on a strong bipartisan vote. I look forward to working together to get the America Invents Act to the President's desk and providing our inventors with the legal landscape they need to flourish.

I appreciate the efforts of Inventors Digest Magazine and others who have promoted National Inventors Month.

Mr. President, today is a memorable day in our Nation's history. Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent victims, including so many Americans who were lost on September 11, 2001, has been killed.

I commend President Obama and his national security team for the careful planning of this operation, as well as the members of our intelligence agencies who have spent years collecting information that made it possible.

As many of us know, when the President nominated Leon Panetta to be the Director of the CIA, he told him that his first directive must be to find Osama bin Laden. I have known Director Panetta for nearly 30 years. I know this is a man who, when he takes on a task, takes it very seriously. I commend him and all those men and women who have worked with him on this. I know he gave singular attention to this issue.

I join Americans across the country in praising the brave team that stormed the compound where bin Laden appears to have been hiding for years. They completed their mission without loss of American lives, while taking care to avoid civilian casualties.

I have had the privilege of watching the special forces train. I have seen the tremendous level of training the SEALS and the Joint Special Operational Command undergo to prepare for dangerous missions like the one conducted yesterday. They are remarkable people. Every member of that team had to go into the compound yesterday knowing that they may not return.

We remember today the victims of all of the attacks perpetrated by the man who more than any other represents the face of international terrorism. The September 11 attacks are at the forefront of our minds. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost, including those victims of the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and on the four airplanes. I remember that day as vividly as though it were yesterday.

We remember with gratitude the first responders who rushed in to saves lives, even knowing they were risking their own. Many died while trying to save others in amazing acts of heroism. And we remember the passengers on Flight 93, who put the lives of Americans on the ground ahead of their own.

We also remember the 6 victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the victims of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, which left 224 dead, including 12 Americans. We remember the lives of the 17 sailors killed in the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000. The death of Osama bin Laden will not bring them back to us, but we all hope it may help bring closure to family members and friends who still grieve their loss.

Today we remember the lives of the brave American servicemembers who have served in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the sacrifices made by their families, who mourn their loss, or help them recover from their injuries.

Vermonters have answered the call to serve--some for multiple deployments with the Vermont National Guard and many most recently with the 86th Infantry Brigade, which returned last December. Of course, we thank the brave men and women who have worked tirelessly to protect American soil from additional attacks.

Osama bin Laden cloaked his attacks in anti-American rhetoric, but his murderous and criminal path took the lives of innocents around the world, including many of his own faith. He proved himself to be a cold- blooded murderer whose indiscriminate attacks led to the deaths or maiming of Muslims and people of other faiths all around the world. Regrettably, he leaves behind followers who are committed to the same message of hate and destruction. They have no regard for the values that unite the rest of humanity in common cause.

President Obama pledged that we would bring bin Laden to justice. Last night, we learned that bin Laden has suffered the consequences of his atrocities. Justice has been served. Now I hope that Americans will claim this moment to stand side by side, as we did in the weeks and months following the September 11 attacks. We must transcend our differences and stand in unity, unified in our support for the victims of bin Laden's crimes and in our resolve to keep our great Nation safe. We should also stand united in our commitment to the rights and principles that define us as a democratic nation that respects the rule of law. That respect is what distinguishes us from those who seek to harm us. It is what will ultimately enable us to succeed against them, and it is what people around the world expect of America.

Regrettably, the September 11 attacks, and other acts of international terrorism, have often been used to justify policies which strayed dangerously from those rights and principles. This has damaged our global reputation, hurt our credibility, and made it more difficult to build the broadest alliances against terrorism.

We must also remember, as so many military leaders have told us, that military force, while at times necessary, as it was in the operation against bin Laden, is not in and of itself a counterterrorism strategy.

We have seen how, nearly 10 years after 9/11, and after spending hundreds of billions of dollars to combat terrorism, the recruitment of terrorists among disaffected youth continues apace around the world, including in our own country.

We have also seen how much more we have to do to counter the misperceptions and misinformation fomented by extremists about the United States and our intentions. Addressing these challenges should be a priority as we go forward.

I urge all Americans to support our President in this continuing effort, and I urge all of us in Congress to join together for the good of the country and all Americans.

It is remarkable what this country accomplishes, and how strong and brave we are, when we stand together. Now is the time to stand together. We have done it before. We can do it now. And we are a better country when we do it.

Mr. President, I see the very distinguished Senator from California on the floor. I yield to her.

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

Mr. President, as we return from Easter recess, judicial vacancies around the country remain at historically alarming levels, as they have for the last 3 years. With 1 out of every 9 Federal judgeships still vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country remaining at 95, we have serious work to do.

I thank the majority leader for scheduling votes on two more nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies. Roy Bale Dalton, Jr., has been nominated to fill a judgeship in the Middle District of Florida and Kevin Hunter Sharp has been nominated to fill a judgeship in the Middle District of Tennessee. Each nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee more than a month ago. They both could be confirmed unanimously.

With cooperation from both sides of the aisle, the Senate could consider the additional 13 judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. I had hoped that the Senate would have considered a number of them before taking its Easter recess 2 weeks ago. Among those nominees are another five to fill additional judicial emergency vacancies, three of them reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, including one which was reported unanimously but remains stalled on the calendar awaiting final action.

We should certainly have proceeded with the judicial nominees for whom there is no opposition and no reason for delay. That would have allowed us to confirm another seven nominees. They have all been thoroughly reviewed by the members of the Judiciary Committee in a hearing and have all been recommended to the Senate unanimously. They are Arenda L. Wright Allen to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of Virginia; Michael Francis Urbanski, to fill a vacancy in the Western District of Virginia; Clair C. Cecchi to fill a vacancy in New Jersey; Esther Salas to fill another vacancy in New Jersey; Paul Oetken and Paul Engelmayer to fill vacancies in the Southern District of New York; and Ramona Manglona to fill a vacancy in the Mariana Islands. The Virginia nominees have been waiting for final consideration longer than those nominees who are being allowed to be considered today.

Two of the nominees currently awaiting a Senate vote have twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and have twice been reported with

strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Michael Simon to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court in Oregon. Two of the nominations have been reported favorably by the Committee three times--that of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit and that of Jack McConnell, reported with bipartisan support to fill a vacancy for the District of Rhode Island. Another currently pending nomination has been reported favorably four times, that of Judge Edward Chen to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern District of California. All of these nominations have long been ready for a Senate vote. So is the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a judicial vacancy on the DC Circuit.

All 15 of the pending nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All should have an up-or-down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and without weeks and months of needless delay.

If we join together, we can make real progress by considering all of the judicial nominations now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the Senate were to take favorable action on the 15 judicial nominations currently pending and awaiting final Senate consideration, we could reduce vacancies to below 90. In fact, we would be able to reduce them to 80 for the first time since July 2009.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first 2 years, judicial vacancies still number 95 more than 26 months into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but we have barely kept up with attrition.

Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate-- which we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--has now swelled to nearly 11 percent.

The two nominations we consider today demonstrate that there is no reason the Senate cannot consider and confirm the President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. Both nominees show President Obama's commitment to working with home State Senators of both parties to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. I thank Senators Nelson, Rubio, Alexander and Corker for working with President Obama on these nominations and congratulate them along with the nominees and their families.

I have thanked the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I am glad to see him echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been treated.

My friend from Iowa often speaks about the positive action we are taking on nominations. In order to make these statements meaningful, the Senate needs to consider and confirm the 15 judicial nominations that are awaiting final consideration and action by the Senate. That the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing its work is good, but to send judicial nominations to the Senate is not enough. It means nothing if they are not considered by the Senate. More than a dozen continue to languish without positive action by the Senate. Some have been stalled since last year and one from two years ago. They all are waiting for what I would call ``positive action.''

I ask unanimous consent that a column by Ashley Belleau, the National President of the Federal Bar Association be printed in the Record at the end of my statement, which, in part, says:

The business of America is business, and when business

can't figure out if their patents are good, their contracts

are good, they can't figure out what to do about their tax

situation, things bog down. Businesses need a strong rule of

law and prompt rulings by judges. Vacancies desperately need

to be filled; new judges desperately need to be added. We owe

that to our citizens. We owe that to our Constitution. We owe

that to the rule of law. And we owe it to the cause of

justice.

Prompt and thoughtful justice, not endless delay, is what

the American people expect from their legal system. It is

what we deserve. It is what due process requires. And it is

the most cost-efficient approach to the resolution of

lawsuits in our nation's courts.

I also ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Arizona Range News entitled ``Lack of Federal Judges a Serious Issue'' be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It mentions a resolution by the Phoenix Chapter of the Federal Bar Association urging Arizona's congressional representatives to work to fill the vacancies plaguing the Arizona courts.

The Senate must do better. We must work together to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country. Judicial vacancies throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court in a timely fashion. This is unacceptable. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, and the President of the United States have spoken out and urged the Senate to act.

Just before the Senate adjourned for its two-week Easter recess, the White House Counsel spoke to the American Bar Association about the need for a sense of greater urgency in filling these judicial vacancies. I hope that we will follow this advice and make real progress to ensure that the Federal courts are able to function for all Americans.

We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations, bringing the vacancy rate down from 10 percent to 4 percent. We confirmed 100 othose judicial nominations during the 17 months I was Chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, well into President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 79 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmarks we set during the Bush administration; 79 is well short of 205.

Exhibit 1

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Apr. 27, 2011]

Business, Defendants Harmed in Cost-Cutting at Federal Courts

(By Ashley L. Belleau)

Just as budgets matter, so does justice. The two are

connected. Making sure we have enough judges in our federal

courts will save dollars, not waste them.

The insufficient number of judges in our federal courts is

costing our country in dollars and protracted litigation.

Manpower and money are foolishly wasted. Record caseloads in

many federal judicial districts cause trials to be delayed,

especially civil cases. This is not good for the state of

justice in our nation.

The fact that we don't have enough judges to decide

promptly the federal civil and criminal lawsuits in our

country owes itself to the Congress and the president. Both

have failed to create enough judgeships in high-caseload

areas of the country, like California and the border courts

in Texas. Both have failed to keep the process moving by

timely providing capable, qualified individuals to fill

judgeships as they open up due to retirement, death or

resignations.

As a result our federal court system is bursting at the

seams. With 12 percent of judgeships vacant, temporary

judgeships expiring, and more courts in emergency mode than

ever, there is an unprecedented crisis in our third branch of

government. The phrase ``justice delayed is justice denied''

describes the dire situation in many federal courthouses.

Judicial vacancies plainly undermine the capacity of our

courts to render justice within a reasonable period of time.

Sadly, few Americans understand the impact these judicial

vacancies have on their lives. Those of us who try federal

cases know

its impact in the continuance of cases for months, even

years, without decision. Vacancies and delay add greater

costs to already high litigation expenses. For business

clients, these costs get passed on to customers. And when the

United States is a party to the case, it means that the

public is paying that higher tab.

For criminal defendants awaiting trial, it can mean more

detention time, adding even more costs to the taxpayer. Just

last year, the federal cost of pretrial detention alone was

$1.4 billion, according to the Department of Justice.

At a recent forum sponsored by the Federal Bar Association

and the Brookings Institution, Federal District Judge Royal

Furgeson commented on the enormous impact that vacancies on

the federal bench have on the pace of litigation and

ultimately the American economy: The business of America is

business, and when businesses can't figure out if their

patents are good, their contracts are good, they can't figure

out what to do about their tax situation, things bog down.

Businesses need a strong rule of law and prompt rulings by

judges. Vacancies desperately need to be filled; new judges

desperately need to be added. We owe that to our citizens. We

owe that to our Constitution. We owe that to the rule of law.

And we owe it to the cause of justice.

Prompt and thoughtful justice, not endless delay, is what

the American people expect from their legal system. It is

what we deserve. It is what due process requires. And it is

the most cost-efficient approach to the resolution of

lawsuits in our nation's courts.

Madam President, I see my distinguished colleagues, the senior Senator from Hawaii and the senior Senator from Mississippi, the leaders of our Appropriations Committee, on the floor. I just ask if I may be able to continue for 2 or 3 minutes.

Madam President, I appreciate the extremely hard work the majority leader--and I have told him this--and the President--I have told him that--and our distinguished chairman--I have told him that-- the work they have done to get the best possible deal under extremely difficult circumstances.

I now understand that with the final resolution, I will not be able to vote for it, as I assume others in the Vermont delegation will not. I am afraid that it creates an impossible bargain. It averts a government shutdown at the expense of our overall national interests.

This year, Congress spent most of its time negotiating three rounds of deeper and deeper cuts in the current year's budget, an exercise in oftentimes misguided wheel-spinning which ignores the fact that discretionary spending is but a relative fraction of the overall budget while addressing some of the most pressing and urgent needs of ordinary Americans. Advocates paint this agreement in moral terms. I agree with them. Budgets are about our real priorities.

There is so much in this budget package that is inconsistent with basic Vermont and American values. Drastic cuts ending hunger programs for low-income women and children, elimination of Vermont's weatherization program, and cuts to economic development programs that grow jobs in my State of Vermont are not my idea of prudent sacrifices. There is no moral credit to Congress to cut vouchers for homeless Vermont veterans who served their country honorably, nor does Congress cover itself in glory by denying first-generation Vermonters help in going to college because of cuts to the TRIO Program. Is there moral good in eliminating housing counseling for low-income families facing foreclosure or slashing small stipends for seniors who are on Meals on Wheels? The estimates of these cuts in my little State range as high as $150 million--a tremendous burden at a time when we face the worst time since the Great Depression.

The reason we are here, as a column pointed out very well in our national papers yesterday, is because even though we had an agreement to pass an omnibus bill last December, at the last minute, those on the other side of the aisle who had agreed on that reneged, and of course we were not able to get the 60 votes necessary in the Senate.

I had supported that omnibus budget bill even though there were enormous cuts in it. It would have enacted tens of billions of dollars in carefully drawn, reasonable reductions below the White House budget proposal. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii had worked very hard and encouraged us to make cut after cut after cut. We all agreed with him. I agreed with him. It was in the omnibus. And if that had passed, we would not be here. But because those who had agreed to support it changed their minds at the last minute, it killed the omnibus bill and it forced the Congress into a series of stopgap funding bills and now into a slapdash continuing resolution.

In addition to the cuts in the omnibus bill, I also supported reductions of billions more, and I voted for billions of dollars in cuts and short-term reductions in the continuing resolutions earlier this year.

Now, some who tout this round of cuts as the most important and as the largest cuts in discretionary spending in history are the same ones who pushed through hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts to companies that ship jobs overseas--American jobs overseas--greatly adding to the profits of our oil companies that are now charging us $4 a gallon for gas and more; pushed through for multimillionaires, many of whom said they did not want the tax cuts--pushed it through nonetheless.

The correlation between those spending cuts and those unfunded tax cuts is direct. It is unflattering to the proponents of both initiatives.

Frankly, I am tired of being lectured on fiscal sanity from those who voted for an unnecessary war in Iraq, saying that is because of 9/11, even though, as we know from every single report that has come out, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. But we spent $1 trillion, thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of other peoples lives in Iraq, and then, for the first time in the history of this country, instead of paying for a war, as we always have in the past, we say: Oh, no, we will borrow the money. And by the way, we will give you a tax cut too.

So who paid for that war in Iraq? The men and women who valiantly fought there and their families who waited, wondering if they would come back alive, broken, or dead, and often were given the worst and grimmest news. They are the only ones who sacrificed. Everybody else got a tax cut, and we borrowed the money from China and everywhere else to pay for a war we should have never been in, and $1 trillion later, 10 years later, we are still spending tens of billions of dollars there.

Some corporations--some others made a lot of money; we did not. And then we spend another 8 or 9 years that we should not have been in Afghanistan doing the same thing--borrowing the money for that.

It seems that our soldiers paid a great burden, and the American people paid a great burden. But boy, some

made out like bandits. I don't want any lectures from those who gave the bandits their bag of gold.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last Friday night, in the absence of a budget deal, the Federal Government came within 1 hour of shutting its doors and all but emergency services. The obstacle to an agreement at that point was not a matter of spending levels or budget cuts. The obstacle was ideologically driven policy riders that some insisted on including in the budget bill. Thankfully, in the end, we prevailed in stripping out the abhorrent rider to bar funding for Planned Parenthood.

A small but vocal minority is adamant about eliminating one specific organization's health centers, which provide health care and family planning services for women nationwide. Planned Parenthood centers receive Federal funding from title X of the Public Health Service Act-- the only Federal grant program dedicated to offering people comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. President Nixon was instrumental in enacting this legislation, and it has been supported since then by lawmakers and Presidents of both parties. As many women can tell you, title X was a remarkable breakthrough in women's health care.

What a travesty it would have been to gut health services to women that literally have meant the difference between life or death, health or grave illness, to countless American women. Vermonters were outspoken in their opposition to this rollback for women's health, and I am proud of our State and grateful for our success in this round.

Tens of thousands of women in Vermont depend on title X of the Public Health Service Act for lifesaving preventive treatments and care. Around the country, there are many providers of title X services, but in Vermont, Planned Parenthood centers are the only clinics where many lower income women can go for family planning care. Planned Parenthood centers in Vermont offer women and teens annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings and counseling. Last year in Vermont, Planned Parenthood provided critical primary and preventive services to nearly 21,000 patients.

In the last few weeks more than 6,000 Vermonters have contacted me about their support for the funds that make title X health services possible and for Planned Parenthood's long and commendable record of making title X's promise a reality for millions of American women in Vermont and across the Nation. I have heard from nurses and doctors in Vermont urging me to support funding for Planned Parenthood in order to continue essential care these centers offer to their own patients and to women who would not receive primary health care were it not for Planned Parenthood.

Despite the misleading and blatantly false statements of some ideologically driven advocates, more than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive. In fact, 6 of every 10 women who use Planned Parenthood for title X services describe it as their primary source of medical care. And despite what some opponents of women's health funding have proclaimed, absolutely no title X funding can be used for abortion services. The sad irony is that defunding title X and Planned Parenthood would result in more unintended pregnancies, and probably more abortions.

This drive to defund women's health services offered by a particular organization also raises constitutional concerns. Article I, section 9, paragraph 3 of our Constitution expressly forbids passage of any ``bill of attainder.'' According to the late former Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, ``A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the Framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.'' Yet those promoting the anti-Planned Parenthood rider clearly intend to single out one organization by name to ``punish'' it, ``punishing'' as well the millions of women who Planned Parenthood serves.

Proponents of this rider have cited what they call ``evidence'' that Planned Parenthood has acted unlawfully. Other supporters of this virulent effort charge that the organization has been ``accused'' of a variety of things. These comments make clear that their legislative intent is to punish for these unverified accusations. Some in fact have gone so far as to accuse Planned Parenthood of violating the law that prohibits any Federal funds to be used to provide abortions.

There is no substantive reason to believe such accusations. If there is any violation of this or any Federal law, it is the role of the executive branch to prosecute and try the offenders. That is not the role of this body, though that is what some are advocating, through their injection of accusations and partisan politics into this debate.

The Framers' original intent was to prohibit bills that single out one entity for punishment because that is not Congress's role in the separation of powers they so carefully devised for our Republic.

Aside from the serious constitutional issues with the pending measure is one naked fact from which proponents of this legislative rider cannot hide: Nothing in this pernicious rider would actually reduce spending. Their proposal would save not one penny. This is about ``punishment,'' not fiscal responsibility.

Does this Congress care more about what looks good on a bumper sticker or what matters in the daily lives of real people? The arrogance and shortsighted attitude of a minority has put at risk the lives and health of millions of women. My wife Marcelle is a cancer survivor. We were lucky. We had good health care and a salary that allowed us to pay the bills when she got sick. Other people are not so lucky. Without the services that Planned Parenthood provides, thousands of low-income women in Vermont would lose their ability to have regular cancer screenings that could save their lives too. That we are even considering the elimination of these health services to America's women is shameful. That it was the sticking point that nearly forced the shutdown of the Federal Government is a disgrace.

Title X was a true breakthrough for the health of American women. Should we as a nation walk back from the remarkable progress we have made in women's health? Of course not. The mean-spirited and ideological attacks must end, and these ideological assaults on women's health care must end.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex binational couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the fourth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined by 17 Senators, many of whom also cosponsored this bill when it was introduced in the last Congress. I want to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Coons, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Kerry, Lautenberg, Merkley, Murray, Schumer, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me as original cosponsors today.

A core tenet of our immigration policy is preserving family unity. Yet gay and lesbian Americans are still forced to choose between their country and being with those they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart- wrenching choice to leave the country they love and start over in one of the countries that now recognize immigration benefits for same-sex couples. I hear from Vermont couples who face this difficult decision every year. No American should face such a choice.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. As a result of this cultural shift, 5 States, including Vermont, now allow same-sex couples to get married. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17 year old policy that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. I hope that my colleagues who supported this important civil rights reform will join me in calling for fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the Uniting American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong, financially interdependent relationship with another adult. The American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds should not be impeded by fears of fraud, which the immigration agency is very capable of controlling.

Since I last introduced the Uniting American Families Act in 2009, more than six additional countries have begun to offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples, bringing the total to at least 25 nations. Some of these nations are our closest allies, including our good friends to the North. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, among developed countries with a culture of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States is falling behind by denying Americans an equitable immigration policy. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their jobs and country, and their loved ones. I urge all Senators to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in the 111th Congress, after hearing the concerns of Vermont's dairy farmers, I introduced the H-2A Improvement Act in order to give the dairy industry access to legal foreign workers under our agricultural visa program. I am proud to introduce this legislation once again, and I am especially pleased to have Senator Enzi join me as a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming for his support, and I look forward to working with him to advance this legislation. I also thank Senators Sanders, Schumer, Kohl, and Gillibrand for their support.

Our bill adds an explicit provision to the H-2A law to allow dairy workers, sheepherders, and goatherders to obtain visas through the H-2A visa program to assist American farmers. Under current law, the dairy industry is completely excluded from obtaining lawful H-2A workers. Under current Department of Labor regulations and guidance, the employers of foreign sheepherders and goatherders in the Western States can use the H-2A program. The authority for these employers to do so is not codified, however, and is therefore subject to the whims of a Federal agency. This legislation will provide the express authority and certainty for these important agricultural industries to use the visa program as Congress intended.

Although milk prices have improved over the past year, dairy farmers still struggle to meet their labor needs. I have heard from Vermont farmers, Vermont's Secretary of Agriculture, and the broader dairy industry about the challenges the current situation presents. I recognize that the H-2A program is imperfect, and I recognize that the best solution is the comprehensive approach in the AgJOBS bill. But basic access to the H-2A program is a better option than what dairy farmers now have, which is no access at all. It is simply illogical to subject such an important agricultural sector to unequal treatment. The denial of access to lawful, willing agricultural workers places a substantial burden on employers.

The H-2A Improvement Act contains provisions designed to accommodate the specific needs of dairy farming, sheepherding, and goatherding. It will allow workers in these industries to enter the United States for an initial employment period of 3 years. The bill grants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to approve a worker for an additional 3-year period as needed. After the first 3 year period is completed, the worker is eligible to petition for lawful permanent residency.

The provisions contained in this bill are very similar to provisions that have been a part of the long pending AgJOBS bill, legislation that I continue to strongly support. But the dairy farmers who continue to operate under this unfair system need help now. Just as much as any other segment of agriculture, they too deserve access to the H-2A program to meet their legitimate labor needs.

For years, I have urged the Department of Labor to use its regulatory authority to give dairy farmers access to H-2A workers. I was disappointed that, despite those requests and the recommendations of the broader dairy community, the final H-2A rule released by the Department in February 2010 failed to extend access to the dairy industry.

As a Senator from a State that prides itself on its dairy products and a long tradition of family farming, it is unacceptable that dairy farmers are put in a position of choosing between their livelihoods and taking risks with a potential employee's immigration status. I strongly believe that the vast majority of dairy farmers want to hire a lawful workforce, and our policy should support these goals.

By expanding the H-2A program to include dairy workers, sheepherders and goatherders, the H-2A Improvement Act would protect both American and foreign workers. It would prevent American workers from having to compete with an unauthorized work force, which enables unscrupulous employers to pay lower wages and make employees work under unsafe labor conditions. It would protect foreign workers by requiring that employers comply with existing H-2A regulations, wage and hour laws, and occupational safety laws. It would grant foreign dairy workers the dignity and stability of lawful status, and the opportunity to step out of the shadows and be productive members of the communities in which they work. Despite the imperfections of the current H-2A system, these are the objectives this legislation strives to achieve.

The H-2A Improvement Act is a straight-forward, targeted fix that makes sure all law abiding farmers in America have the same access to foreign agricultural labors. I recognize that many agricultural employers have legitimate frustrations with the current regulatory process. I intend to maintain my strong support of AgJOBS legislation, which would provide the most immediate and substantial benefit to our Nation's farmers and foreign agricultural workers. But I am unwilling to forego an opportunity to enact meaningful, bipartisan legislation to promote basic fairness for dairy, goat, and sheep farmers under our immigration laws. I hope Senators will support this common sense legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.