Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am honored to share a Vermont community's tribute to the stout hearts and brave souls of the service men and women serving overseas.

This year, in recognition of Vermont's largest military deployment since World War II, the townspeople of

Clarendon, VT, sought a way to show their support for Americans stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the town's elementary school, 39 children of the ages of 7 to 10 recorded a song called ``Box of Kisses'' for our troops in the National Guard. With the help of two local musicians, James Mee and Michael Mugrage, the students of Clarendon Elementary School devoted their lunch and recess time to this project. Students also spent their free time handcrafting more than 500 paper boxes filled with brief personal messages and pieces of candy as tokens of their thanks for the sacrifices being made by these Vermonters serving abroad.

Although Box of Kisses is being sent to hundreds of soldiers, this community's project is a highly personal act for many families in Clarendon. Within this school community of only 198 students, 12 people have family members serving in Afghanistan. Marcelle and I are so proud of and grateful for our Nation's servicemembers and their families. So are Vermonters in every community throughout our State, who are showing support for our soldiers' families in ways small and large every day-- by mowing lawns, babysitting, shoveling sidewalks, and through many other small kindnesses. Clarendon's story is another example of why I am proud to be a Vermonter.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record an article, published in the Rutland Herald, in which reporter Cristina Kumka tells this heartening story from Clarendon.

Mr. President, I see the Republican leadership and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee on the floor. I would note that I am hopeful the Senate Republican leadership would take the opportunity to enter into a time agreement on 1 of the more than 20 judicial nominees who have been stalled from Senate consideration. I am referring to the nomination of Jane Stranch of Tennessee. Her nomination was reported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee last November, 8 months ago.

A native of Nashville, Mississippi, Ms. Stranch has practiced law in that community for 32 years, and has often appealed before the Sixth Circuit--the court to which she is now nominated. She has decades of experience in labor and employment law, an expertise she put to good use when she taught a class on labor law at Nashville's Belmont University. Ms. Stranch also has an active appellate practice, as well as significant experience with alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation and arbitration. She is a leader in her community who dedicates significant time to pro bono work, civic matters, and her church. She also has impressive academic credentials, having earned both her J.D., Order of the Coif, and her B.A., summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Vanderbilt University.

Since this nomination was reported last November, all Democratic Senators have been prepared to debate and vote on her nomination. I had given my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, my assurance about that. I, myself, have spoken about this nomination a number of times because it is one of the oldest on the calendar.

I know the senior Senator from Tennessee has expressed his frustration to me about the fact that this nomination has not been voted on in the last 8 months. So I went to him last week and said I was going to make a unanimous consent request for a time agreement to consider her nomination. The Senator asked me if I would wait until today, which I was glad to do. We have waited 8 months already.

I, in no way, fault the senior Senator from Tennessee. He has been very clear to me he is ready to vote whenever this nomination comes forward. So seeing the Republican leader on the floor, I will now propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent, as if in executive session, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session and consider Calendar No. 552, the nomination of Jane B. Stranch, of Tennessee, to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; there be 3 hours of debate with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, myself and Senator Sessions, or our designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I am terribly disappointed. With this objection, Senate Republicans have further ratcheted up the obstruction and partisanship that has become commonplace this Congress with regard to judicial nominees. I had honestly hoped that working with the respected senior Senator from Tennessee, we would be able to obtain a standard time agreement. I am not asking any Republican Senator to vote for the nominee, but simply to vote. I am not asking Republican Senators to vote before they have had a chance to debate the nomination, only to agree to a reasonable time for debate. If they do not think 3 hours reasonable, I wish they would indicate what time they think they need for such a debate. During the past 2 years, their demands for time have gone unused in debates on the nominations. Often, hours will be demanded in opposition without any of it being used for that purpose. If it were just a matter of the number, I would hope we could have worked that out and reached an agreement. Instead, this objection is like the Republican leader's objection last week to the request from the Senator from North Carolina to consider two nominees from that State to the Fourth Circuit. They were both reported by the Judiciary Committee last January, more than 6 months ago. One was reported by a vote of 18 to 1 and the other by a vote of 19 to 0; they are supported by both home State Senators, one a Republican and one a Democrat. Still the Republican leadership refuses to allow the Senate to consider them.

I was disappointed to see my friend from Kentucky object last week. He did not speak about the nominees, or to their unquestioned qualifications, including their backgrounds in military service. It seemed as if his justification was along the lines of tit-for-tat. That is most unfortunate. I note that when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee midway through President Bush's first tumultuous year in office, I worked very hard to make sure Senate Democrats did not perpetuate the judge wars as tit-for-tat. In fact, we did not. Despite that fact that Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them, including one of the nominees from North Carolina now pending before us, again, during the 17 months I chaired the committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. By contrast, during these first 2 years of President Obama's term, Senate Republicans have allowed only 36 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered by the Senate, 100 to 36.

Ironically, the history of the Sixth Circuit and our efforts to turn away from the destructive practices that Republicans had followed during the Clinton years is detailed in my July 29, 2002, Senate statement in support of another Tennessee nominee, Judge Julia Gibbons. As chairman, I proceeded to a confirmation hearing for Judge Gibbons in April 2002; it was the first hearing for a Sixth Circuit nominee in 5 years. Despite the well-qualified nominees of President Clinton, the Republican majority did not consider them. Republicans refused to consider the nominations of Judge Helene White, an experienced State court judge; Kathleen McCree Lewis, an accomplished attorney and the daughter of former Solicitor General of the United States and former Sixth Circuit Judge Wade McCree; and Kent Markus, a law professor and former Justice Department official who had the support of his Republican home State Senator. This was the partisan record Senate Democrats overcame when in the Senate majority. Republicans' pocket filibusters of President Clinton's nominees resulted in numerous Sixth Circuit vacancies. By proceeding with President Bush's nominations of Judge Julia Gibbons of Tennessee and then his nomination of Judge John Rogers of Kentucky, to the Sixth Circuit in 2002, the Democratic Senate majority did not engage in a tit-for-tat but acted to break the logjam the Republican obstruction had created.

When I resumed the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in 2008, we were able to fill the last remaining vacancies on the Sixth Circuit when we confirmed President Bush's nominations of Judge Helene White and Judge Ray Kethledge of Michigan to the Sixth Circuit. Judge White had been one of President Clinton's nominations in 1997 who was pocket filibustered after having waited in vain for a hearing for more than 1,450 days. During the Bush years the Sixth Circuit went from half vacant to full.

With respect to Senate Republican leadership's current practice of holding, delaying and obstructing Senate consideration of judicial nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, this is a tactic they reserve for nominees of Democratic Presidents. Indeed, when President Bush was in the White House, Senate Republicans took the position that it was unconstitutional and wholly inappropriate not to vote on nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. With a Democratic President, they have reverted to their secret holds that resulted in pocket filibusters during the Clinton years. Last year, Senate Republicans successfully stalled all but a dozen Federal circuit and district court nominees. That was the lowest total for judges confirmed in more than 50 years. They have continued that practice despite the fact that judicial vacancies continue to hover around 100, with more than 40 declared judicial emergencies.

No one should be confused: The current obstruction and stalling by Senate Republicans is unprecedented. There is no systematic counterpart by Senate Democrats. In fact, during the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the 100 judges confirmed were considered by the Senate an average of 25 days from being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The average time for confirmed circuit court nominees was 26 days. The average time for the 36 Federal circuit and district and circuit court judges confirmed since President Obama took office is 82 days and the average time for circuit nominees is 126 days.

Overall judicial vacancies were reduced during the Bush years from almost 10 percent to less than 4 percent. Federal judicial vacancies are now over 10 percent. During the Bush years, the Federal circuit court vacancies were reduced from a high of 32 down to single digits. That progress has not continued with President Obama. Instead, Republican obstruction is putting that progress at risk. During the Bush years, we reduced vacancies on nine circuits. Since then, vacancies on six circuits have risen. I note that during the Clinton years, Republican obstruction succeeded in virtually doubling Federal circuit vacancies.

I trust that the Republican leader remembers how I treated and Senate Democrats treated judicial nominees from Kentucky. During the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years, we proceeded to consider and confirm Judge John Rogers of Kentucky to the Sixth Circuit by voice vote before the end of the session in 2002, having already confirmed Judge Danny Reeves and Judge Karen Caldwell to the Eastern District of Kentucky, and of course, Judge David Bunning to the Eastern District of Kentucky by voice vote, as well. During the more than 4 years that Republicans were in the majority during the Bush Presidency, one other judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky was confirmed, Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, a former aide to the senior Senator from Kentucky. The year I resumed the Judiciary Committee chairmanship, we proceeded to confirm Judge Amul Thapar to the Eastern District of Kentucky. Nominees the Republican leader supported for his home State's vacancies were very well treated.

I am confident the senior Senator from Tennessee remembers how fairly we treated judicial nominees from his State. I was chair when we broke a longstanding logjam on the Sixth Circuit by confirming Judge Julia Gibbons of Tennessee in July 2002. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration we worked to see the Senate also confirm Samuel Mays, Jr., as a judge for the Western District of Tennessee and Judge Thomas Phillips as a judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee. When I resumed the chairmanship in 2008, we also facilitated the Senate confirmation of Judge Stanley Anderson

to be a judge for the Western District of Tennessee. During the intervening years three other nominees were considered and confirmed to be Eastern District of Tennessee judges, Judge Thomas Vartan, Judge Ronnie Greet and Judge Harry Mattice, Jr. In addition Judge J. Daniel Breen was confirmed to be a judge in the Western District of Tennessee.

There did come a time in the 108th Congress when President Bush and Senate Republicans were intent on packing the courts with ideologues and the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee violated the rules and practices of the committee in support of this effort. They forced filibusters of 10 nominees, 6 of which were ultimately confirmed.

I have not done what the Republican chairman did. I have respected and protected the rights of the minority. President Obama has not made nominations opposed by home State Senators but has instead reached out and worked with home State Senators from both parties. He has by and large nominated well-qualified moderates.

I have tried to ratchet up the cooperation between parties and branches in my role as chairman. It is disappointing to see the Senate Republican leadership take the opposite approach. They are holding up consideration of nominees reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee for weeks and months for no reason. Just last week, after a needless 3-month delay, the Senate confirmed a judge for the Northern District of Illinois unanimously. That is more evidence of the pattern of stall and obstruct. Earlier this year the majority leader had to file cloture to get to a vote on the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit. When the vote was held, she was confirmed unanimously.

Republicans' sense of injury is misplaced in my view. Moreover, the disproportionateness of their response disserves the American people and our Federal justice system.

Jane Stranch of Tennessee is just one example of the harm they are causing. Judge James Wynn of North Carolina is another example, as is Judge Albert Diaz, also of North Carolina. The list includes the 21 judicial nominees currently stalled by Republican objection from final Senate consideration but also many of the 36 who were needlessly delayed. What is being perpetuated is a shame.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee for his efforts in moving this forward. I am obviously disappointed, but I am not disappointed in the actions of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. He did work very hard.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 460, H.R. 2765.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today the Senate has passed important bipartisan legislation to reduce the chilling effect that foreign libel lawsuits are having on Americans' first amendment rights.

I am the son of printers and I consider this a matter of great importance. My parents told me from the time I was a child: Believe in and uphold the first amendment. It is the basis of our democracy. It guarantees us the right to practice any religion we want or none if we want. And it protects the right of free speech. Those protections guarantee diversity. If you have a constitution that guarantees diversity, you guarantee a democracy.

That is what this does. I wish to thank Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for working with me on this bill.

Let me speak a little bit about what the bill does. The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act or, as we call it, the SPEECH Act, will ensure that American courts will not enforce foreign libel judgments from countries where free speech protections are lower than what our Constitution affords against American journalists, authors, and publishers.

Too frequently, foreign plaintiffs bring libel suits against American writers and publishers in countries where the plaintiff or the publication lacks any significant connection to the foreign forum. The lawsuit is brought there because of that foreign country's weaker plaintiff-friendly libel laws. This is known colloquially as libel tourism.

In other words, if somebody in the United States writes a book, probably

very accurate, about some despot or some leader of a country who has done criminal acts, has stolen the property of that country or any one of a number of things--it could be very accurate and, in our country, truth is a defense--what they will do is maybe order online a couple copies of the books and deliver them to another country with weak libel laws and then seek judgments against the author, against the publisher, against newspapers that may have published excerpts of it; everything to chill any criticism of those who have either breached human rights or stolen from their own country and on and on.

On a broad scale, libel tourism results in a race to the bottom. It causes America to defer to a country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard determining what they can write or publish. This undermines our first amendment. The first amendment, as I said earlier, guarantees the diversity of thought and opinion in this country which actually allows and determines and guarantees that democracy.

The freedoms of speech and the press are cornerstones of our democracy. They enable vigorous debate, and an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process. Reporters, authors and publishers are among the primary sources of these ideas, and their ability to disseminate them through their writings is critical to our democracy. The broad dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has compounded the threat of libel tourism.

This problem is well documented. Two years ago, the United Nations' Human Rights Committee observed that one country's libel laws ``discourage[d] critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and ``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.''

Several States, to their credit, have enacted legislation to combat this problem, but we need a national response. While we can't legislate changes to foreign laws that are chilling protected speech in our country, what we can do to uphold the right of free speech in our own country is assure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American first amendment or due process rights. The SPEECH Act is an important step toward reducing this chilling of American free speech

The SPEECH Act is an important step toward reducing this chilling of American free speech. Americans have a great gift in their right of free speech. Every single Senator, Republican and Democratic, should join, as we have in this case, to protect America's rights.

The SPEECH Act is the product of hard work and extensive negotiations on both sides of the aisle, and the process is certainly mindful about principles of international comity. Many supporters would not have written this bill in this exact way, but all recognize that a bipartisan compromise is an important step in confronting the libel tourism issue. Without it, we could not pass this bill.

Among the supporters are the Vermont Library Association, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Civil Liberties Union, Net Coalition, and renowned first amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, who herself has been the victim of a libel suit in the United Kingdom, and has been a tremendous advocate for Congressional action in this area.

I wish to thank Senators Specter, Schumer, and Lieberman for their work in raising this important issue in the Senate and Representative Cohen for his hard work on libel tourism legislation in the other body. I am pleased the Senate has adopted this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to its prompt consideration and adoption by the House and to the President signing it into law.

Mr. President, I do not see anybody else seeking recognition, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague and good friend Senator Sanders to introduce the boundary expansion of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in the State of Vermont. This amendment will add 159 acres and several historic farmstead structures to the 555-acre National Park.

This park is an extraordinary place in Vermont where a unique and enduring connection has been forged between the land and its inhabitants. The picturesque and historic landscape of the Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park is nestled in the rolling hills near Woodstock, in Vermont's Windsor County. It is a small park with the powerful mission of recognizing and continuing the legacy of three generations of stewardship thought, and stewardship in action. The successive owners of this estate,

for whom the park is named, were each in their own right giants of conservation ideas and practice. This legislation will expand the park's land area to help our generation and future generations to better fulfill and carry forward its mission.

The boyhood home of George Perkins Marsh, one of America's first conservationists, and later the home of Frederick Billings, the property was given to the American people by its most recent owners, Laurance S. and Mary F. Rockefeller. The park was created by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on August 26, 1992. It is a living symbol of America's conservation ethic. The Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park tells a story of conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in America.

The park puts the idea of conservation stewardship into a modern context, interpreting the idea of place and the ways in which people can balance natural resource conservation with the requirements of our 21st Century world. It is also a repository for the histories of these three American families. Visitors can tour the mansion and gardens and learn more about conservation by hiking in the sustainably managed forest, and they can visit the land stewardship exhibit at the Carriage Barn Visitor Center. The park operates in partnership with The Woodstock Foundation and the adjacent Billings Farm and Museum--a working dairy farm and a museum of agricultural and rural life that offers visitors the opportunity to experience both farm and forest landscapes, in side-by-side settings.

This new legislation would expand the boundaries of the park to incorporate the neighboring King Farm. The land and structures of this historic Woodstock farm will allow the National Park Service to expand the scope and delivery of its telling of the conservation story. The farm will provide a setting for programs in sustainable agriculture and a venue for community groups and others to undertake related projects and educational opportunities activities that have been limited in the past by the sensitivity of the historic structures constituting the Rockefeller estate. Model forestry activities and the trail network will also be enhanced through this boundary expansion.

This legislation also formally establishes the Conservation Studies Institute within the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. The Institute has evolved within the National Park Service over the past decade to enhance leadership in conservation throughout the National Park Service and to facilitate stewardship partnerships in local communities. It is through these partnerships that the Institute inspires collaborative conservation to engage communities and help them build their vision for the future. The park, the Institute and their Vermont setting are a great fit and a valuable setting in which to offer prototypes for conservation and sustainable practices on so many fronts.

A Vermont author and professor, John Elder, said this at the park's dedication on June 5th 1998:

There is a mandate to invent an entirely new kind of park.

It must be one where the human stories and the natural

history are intertwined; where the relatively small acreage

serves as an educational resource for the entire National

Park Service and a seedbed for American environmental

thought; and where the legacy of American conservation and

its future enter into dialogue, generating a new

environmental paradigm for our day.

This is a unique opportunity to enhance the mission of the Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park and its service to the American people.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague and good friend Senator Sanders to introduce the boundary expansion of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in the State of Vermont. This amendment will add 159 acres and several historic farmstead structures to the 555-acre National Park.

This park is an extraordinary place in Vermont where a unique and enduring connection has been forged between the land and its inhabitants. The picturesque and historic landscape of the Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park is nestled in the rolling hills near Woodstock, in Vermont's Windsor County. It is a small park with the powerful mission of recognizing and continuing the legacy of three generations of stewardship thought, and stewardship in action. The successive owners of this estate,

for whom the park is named, were each in their own right giants of conservation ideas and practice. This legislation will expand the park's land area to help our generation and future generations to better fulfill and carry forward its mission.

The boyhood home of George Perkins Marsh, one of America's first conservationists, and later the home of Frederick Billings, the property was given to the American people by its most recent owners, Laurance S. and Mary F. Rockefeller. The park was created by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on August 26, 1992. It is a living symbol of America's conservation ethic. The Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park tells a story of conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in America.

The park puts the idea of conservation stewardship into a modern context, interpreting the idea of place and the ways in which people can balance natural resource conservation with the requirements of our 21st Century world. It is also a repository for the histories of these three American families. Visitors can tour the mansion and gardens and learn more about conservation by hiking in the sustainably managed forest, and they can visit the land stewardship exhibit at the Carriage Barn Visitor Center. The park operates in partnership with The Woodstock Foundation and the adjacent Billings Farm and Museum--a working dairy farm and a museum of agricultural and rural life that offers visitors the opportunity to experience both farm and forest landscapes, in side-by-side settings.

This new legislation would expand the boundaries of the park to incorporate the neighboring King Farm. The land and structures of this historic Woodstock farm will allow the National Park Service to expand the scope and delivery of its telling of the conservation story. The farm will provide a setting for programs in sustainable agriculture and a venue for community groups and others to undertake related projects and educational opportunities activities that have been limited in the past by the sensitivity of the historic structures constituting the Rockefeller estate. Model forestry activities and the trail network will also be enhanced through this boundary expansion.

This legislation also formally establishes the Conservation Studies Institute within the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. The Institute has evolved within the National Park Service over the past decade to enhance leadership in conservation throughout the National Park Service and to facilitate stewardship partnerships in local communities. It is through these partnerships that the Institute inspires collaborative conservation to engage communities and help them build their vision for the future. The park, the Institute and their Vermont setting are a great fit and a valuable setting in which to offer prototypes for conservation and sustainable practices on so many fronts.

A Vermont author and professor, John Elder, said this at the park's dedication on June 5th 1998:

There is a mandate to invent an entirely new kind of park.

It must be one where the human stories and the natural

history are intertwined; where the relatively small acreage

serves as an educational resource for the entire National

Park Service and a seedbed for American environmental

thought; and where the legacy of American conservation and

its future enter into dialogue, generating a new

environmental paradigm for our day.

This is a unique opportunity to enhance the mission of the Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park and its service to the American people.

Mr. President, I know--I assume we are on the confirmation of Sharon Coleman?

First, I am going to speak a little bit about the process of her nomination through the committee. The distinguished Presiding Officer would know about this because he has had probably the best attendance of anybody, including the chairman, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has handled a number of these nominations.

We are going to proceed today on only 1 of the 22 judicial nominations that have been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican obstruction. This is a nominee we considered and voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously 3 months ago without objection.

Just so everybody will understand, even after being nominated to serve on a court, these well-qualified nominees have to put their lives on hold. We have the hearing, they go through the committee unanimously, but then they wait and wait on the Senate floor. If the nominee is practicing law they cannot take on new clients. If they are with a law firm, they have a hard time taking new cases as the law firm needs to avoid any conflict of interest.

I cannot understand why this obstruction is happening. I have never seen anything like this in my 36 years in the Senate. No Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee voted against this nomination. There are another dozen judicial nominations on the Senate's Executive Calendar that were reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection, but they remain stalled by a Republican refusal to consent to final Senate action.

I tell people in my home State of Vermont I am sent here to vote yes or no, not to vote maybe. It seems to me everybody wants to vote maybe. There is no good reason each of these pending nominations could not be confirmed immediately. With so many nominations, despite ongoing vacancies and the need in the Northern District of Illinois for this judge, 3 months have passed without any explanation.

I predict that when we have the rollcall on this nomination it will be confirmed with virtually no opposition, which makes it even more tragic. Also, it hurts the Federal judiciary. It hurts the credibility of the Federal judiciary. But I might say, especially on something like this, where the Senate Republican leadership would not even consent to a vote on the nomination until today, this certainly hurts the image of the Senate. People cannot understand why, when we have something on which everybody agrees, why it cannot come to a vote.

We have the Senate Republican leadership refusing to enter into time agreements on pending judicial nominations that have the support from both Democrats and Republicans, including nominations with bipartisan support from North Carolina and Tennessee and South Carolina and California and New York and Delaware and Virginia and Utah, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. Every single Democrat is prepared to vote on these nominations. They could vote on them tonight and are prepared to vote now. However, they continue to be held up by Republicans.

So I tell the people of North Carolina and Tennessee, South Carolina and California and New York and Delaware and Virginia and Utah and Maryland and Minnesota and Rhode Island, if you are wondering where your judges are, they are being held up not by the Democrats but by the Republicans.

In fact, the Senate is dramatically behind the pace I set for President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. In 2002, the second year of the Bush administration, the Democratic Senate majority's hard work led to the confirmation of 72 Federal circuit and district judges nominated by a President from the other party. In this second year of the Obama administration, we have confirmed just 23 so far--72 for President Bush, 23 for President Obama.

In the first 2 years of the Bush administration, we confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district court judges. So far, in the first 2 years of the Obama administration, the Republican leadership has successfully blocked all but 35 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees--100 to 35.

Playing games with the Federal judiciary hurts everybody. During the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency, I had the opportunity to serve for 17 months of as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I knew we had just come from a time where Republicans had pocket- filibustered 61 of President Clinton's nominees to the judiciary. I said we ought to try stopping that, so in those 17 months that I had the privilege to serve as chairman, I convinced the people in my caucus and others and we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees.

I mention this because in the first 48 months of President Bush's Presidency, actually barely half of that time, 17 months of that 48 months, there were Democrats in charge. For 31 months of this time there were Republicans in charge. During the 17 months that the

Democrats were in charge, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees. During the 31 months the Republicans were in charge I think they confirmed around the same number. So we showed our good faith, even though we had seen 61 of the Democratic President's nominees pocket-filibustered.

At this date in President Clinton's second year in office the Senate had confirmed 72 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. At this date in President Bush's second year in office, 57. Of course, we confirmed 100 in all by the end of the year.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country continue to hover around 100. Of these, 43 vacancies have been declared by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be judicial emergencies. I cannot remember a time when we have had 43 judicial emergencies.

Sharon Coleman has been nominated to fill one of them, but we have had to wait 3 months just to get to a vote on her. Ten nominations to fill other judicial emergency vacancies have been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they remain stalled in the Senate. Last year, when Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's nominees, we confirmed the fewest judges in 50 years, the fewest judges from any President, Republican or Democratic, in 50 years.

Speaking of another nominee, I said to President Obama when he asked why they were blocking everything he tried to do, I said: If you had nominated Moses the Lawgiver, there would be some who would try to block the nomination. In fact, I said, at least somebody would say: Well, he can't produce a birth certificate.

This is playing games with the Federal judiciary. I don't know what the benefits are. It certainly does not make the Senate look good. When you think the Senate Republican leadership last year allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered and confirmed, despite the availability of many more for final action--that is wrong. They have continued their obstruction throughout this year. By every measure, this Republican obstructionism of our Federal judiciary is a disaster for the Federal courts and the American people. But the good thing is Sharon Coleman is going to be confirmed today. After these unnecessary delays, she will be confirmed, and I congratulate Sharon Coleman and her family on her confirmation.

She is currently a justice on the Illinois Appellate Court of Chicago, having served previously as a judge on the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, as Deputy State's Attorney and Bureau Chief for the Public Interest Bureau of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois, and as an assistant State's attorney in Cook County.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Justice Coleman ``well qualified.'' That is the highest possible rating they could give her.

After she is confirmed, and she will be, there will be still 21 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee that have been stalled from Senate consideration by the Senate Republican leadership. For many months I have urged the Republican leader to work with the majority leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus nominees. Going forward, we will have many who will be confirmed by our committee unanimously. We ought to get them to the Senate floor and vote on them. The Senate needs to be making better progress considering the many pending judicial nomination awaiting final Senate action.

I see the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I assume he wishes to speak, and I will yield the floor to him.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize COL Phil Skuta, USMC, who will complete his tour of duty with the U.S. Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs on July 15, 2010. In his role as the director of the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office, he has provided excellent support by ensuring the smooth and timely passage of information from the Marine Corps to Senators and their staffs. His sense of duty and responsibility contributed to a successful relationship between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Marine Corps. His dedication to serving the U.S. Senate will be missed.

A native of Williamsport, PA, Colonel Skuta attended the University of Pittsburgh and received a commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1987. His career as a Marine officer has been varied and admirable. Prior to his assignment to the U.S. Senate, he served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate. Before that, he led 1,200 marines, soldiers, and sailors in combat in Iraq in 2004 as a battalion task force commander. Over the past 24 months, his excellent work, leadership of his liaison team, and example of professionalism have served the Senate well and reflected credit on the U.S. Marine Corps.

Upon his arrival as director of the U.S. Senate Marine Corps Liaison Office, Colonel Skuta assumed and upheld the distinguished standard set by his predecessors. His approach to resolving complex issues allowed him to advise and inform Members and their staffs of Marine Corps plans, policies, programs, and worldwide activities. Despite the fluidity of legislative process, Colonel Skuta established and developed productive working relationships through engagement opportunities.

As liaison officer to the Senate, Colonel Skuta represented the Marine Corps on all Marine-related matters and effectively articulated the Marine Corps' most difficult and challenging legislative initiatives to Members and staff. He has been an integral player in maintaining effective relationships between the Marine Corps, my colleagues in the Senate, professional committee staff, and personal staff members. In particular, he responded to hundreds of congressional inquiries, ranging from such sensitive issues as notification of combat casualties from the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns to providing timely information on the operation, organization, and budget of the Marine Corps. He also planned and executed dozens of international congressional delegations. I had the pleasure of traveling on two of these congressional delegations with Colonel Skuta and was impressed with his service to the Members of the Senate. He reflected well on his service at numerous Marine Corps and joint social events on Capitol Hill. Among others, these events included

the Marine Corps Birthday Commemoration, the Joint Services Reception, the Marine Corps Marathon, and several Marine Corps seasonal receptions.

On behalf of the Senate, I thank Colonel Skuta for his continued service to the Nation and the U.S. Marine Corps, and I thank his wife Jane for her steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty. We in the U.S. Senate, and I personally, wish them all the best as Phil departs to assume duties as Director of the Marine Corps' Strategic Initiatives Group at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, DC.

Semper Fi!

Mr. President, as we take stock of the changes made last week by President Obama to the military command in Afghanistan, there is a related issue that has been discussed in the press that is of particular concern to me.

I believe the President's decision to replace General McChrystal was the right decision. The published comments of the general and his aides were unquestionably insubordinate. They portrayed extraordinarily poor judgment and disrespect, and a deterioration of discipline that was unacceptable.

But putting aside those matters, I believe General McChrystal's command was notable for his recognition, to an unprecedented extent, of the importance of protecting the lives of innocent Afghan civilians for the safety of U.S. troops and to improve the chances of success of the mission.

Before General McChrystal's tenure, the need to do more to reduce civilian casualties was discussed, particularly after each incident when civilians were inadvertently killed or injured. But far too little was done about it. The frequent reliance on air power in areas where civilians were present caused many innocent casualties. Whole villages were destroyed. Wedding parties were wiped out. Night raids also often caused civilian deaths or injuries, as well as widespread anger and resentment towards U.S. troops who were perceived as disrespectful of Afghan customs.

General McChrystal implemented stricter rules of engagement to reduce these tragic incidents. While in some cases these rules have limited our troops' actions, they do not prevent soldiers from acting in self- defense when there is a real or perceived threat. There is no basis, as far as I am aware, military or otherwise, to criticize these efforts to protect civilian lives. Indeed, I believe more can still be done, particularly to prevent such unfortunate incidents at roadblocks and checkpoints, where those killed have, with few exceptions, turned out to be unarmed civilians who posed no threat. Their deaths caused great suffering for their families, and incited support for the Taliban in their communities.

Reducing civilian casualties, and by doing so winning the support of the Afghan people, is essential. In late April, the people of the town of Gizab, north of Kandahar, took up arms and ousted the Taliban. This is encouraging, but it is unlikely to continue to occur if the

United States and our ISAF partners are perceived by the civilian population as another invader.

I have my own concerns with the President's strategy in Afghanistan, which I will discuss at a later time. But today, as General Petraeus prepares to assume command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it is fortunate, I believe, that he knows from Iraq that winning the support and respect of the local population means much more than the cliche it has become. Progress in Afghanistan depends on it.

I remember that.

Madam President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from North Dakota. I recall sitting here on the floor, I tell my friend from North Dakota, who may well have been here at that time when Senator Byrd spoke of the pygmies strutting like a colossus. We both know who he meant and we both know the effect it had, and I thank him for reminding us of that.

I believe all of us who served with him and knew Senator Byrd were saddened by the news of his passing. No Senator came to care more about the Constitution or was a more effective defender of our constitutional government than the senior Senator from West Virginia. How many times did we see him reach into his jacket pocket and hold up the Constitution? He would say: This is what guides me.

I said in the Judiciary Committee today that many of us carry the Constitution and we can turn to it and read from it. Senator Byrd, if asked, would recite it verbatim from memory from page 1 straight through.

Senator Byrd was a Senator's Senator. During the time before he stopped playing, some of us would be at an event with him where he would play the fiddle. I recall one of those times when he played the fiddle, and now his successor as President pro tempore, Senator Inouye, played the piano, playing compositions only requiring one hand, and the two of them played in the caucus room now named after our late Senator Ted Kennedy. I heard him play in the happy times and the enjoyable times when he would try to bring Senators of both parties together and act like human beings.

I have also sat here with him when he reminded Senators of what the Constitution stood for, what our role was in the Constitution, when he spoke against going to war in Iraq without reason and without a declaration of war. It was one of the most powerful speeches I have heard him give. In over 36 years of serving with him, I heard many speeches.

Others will speak of his records for time served in the Senate and in Congress and the number of votes he cast. I think of him more as a mentor and a friend. I recall in the fall of 1974 becoming the Senator- elect and coming down here to talk to Senators and meeting with Senator Byrd and Senator Mansfield, Senator Mansfield being the leader, Senator Byrd the deputy leader. I recall one of the things he told me--both of them did: Always keep your word. Robert Byrd, Robert Carlyle Byrd, if he gave you his word, you could go to the bank with it, but he would expect the same in return, as he should. That is something all of us should be reminded of and all of us should seek to achieve.

I was honored to sit near him on the Senate floor. Sitting near him in the same room we would engage in many discussions about the Senate and the rules or about the issues of the moment, or about our families. But now I sit here and I look at the flowers on his desk; I look at the drape on that desk. Over the many years I have had the privilege of representing the State of Vermont in this body, I have had to come on the floor of the Senate to see the traditional drapery and the flowers on either side of the aisle when we have lost dear colleagues; more than that, we have lost dear friends. Party is irrelevant. The friendship is what is important. It tugs at your heart and it tugs at your soul to see it. Walking in here and looking down the row where I sit and seeing that, I don't know when I have felt the tug so strong.

Marcelle and I were privileged to know Bob and Erma, his wonderful Erma. We would see them in the grocery store in Northern Virginia. Our wives would drive in together for Senate matters. I recall sitting with him in his office 1 day when we spoke of the death of his grandson and how it tore him apart to have lost him in an accident. He had his portrait in his office with a black drapery. We sat there--this man who could be so composed--we sat and held hands while he cried about his grandson. At that time I did not have the privilege of being a grandfather yet. Today, I think I can more fully understand what he went through. I remember the emotion and the strength of it. This was not just the person whom we saw often as the leader of the Senate, the chairman of a major committee, ready and in control, but a human being mourning somebody very dear to him.

He was a self-educated man. He learned much throughout his life, but then he had much to teach us all. It has been spoken about how he talked to the pages, but he would talk to anybody about his beloved Senate. He did more than that. He wrote the definitive history of the Senate. We all learned from him. He was a symbol of West Virginia. He was an accomplished legislator. He was an extraordinary American.

As a form of tribute I suspect Senator Byrd himself would appreciate--let me quote from Pericles' funeral oration from Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War about the inherent strength of democracy. Senator Byrd was well familiar with this passage, and with its relevance to our Constitution and our form of government. I heard him use it before. Pericles is said to have spoken this:

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the

institutions of others. Our government does not copy our

neighbors, but is an example to them. It is true that we are

called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of

the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal

justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim

of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in

any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service,

not as a matter of privilege, but as a reward of merit.

Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his

country whatever the obscurity of his condition.

Senator Byrd believed in this country. He believed that a youngster who had been adopted, who lived in a house without running water, who had to work for every single thing he obtained, could also rise to the highest positions in this body, a body he loved more than any other institution in our government, save one: the Constitution. The Constitution was his North Star and his lone star. It was what guided him.

Senator Byrd was such an extraordinary man of merit and grit and determination who loved his family. I recall him speaking of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and he would proudly tell you about each of them. I remember even after he was a widower walking by and leaning over and saying, How are you? He would say, I am fine. How is Marcelle? And Senators from both sides of the aisle would come just to talk with him.

He drew strength from his deep faith. He took to heart his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The arc of his career in public service is an inspiration to us all, and it will inspire Americans of generations to come.

So, Robert, I say goodbye to you, my dear friend. I am not going to forget your friendship. I am not going to forget how you mentored me. But, especially, I will not forget, and I will always cherish even after I leave this body, your love of the Senate.

Senator Byrd, you are one of a kind.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today the Senate is proceeding on only one of the 23 judicial nominees stalled by Republican obstruction from action by the Senate. The nominee the Senate will confirm tonight has been stalled for more than 10 weeks, even though his nomination was reported without a single objection from the Judiciary Committee on April 15. There are eight other judicial nominees who have been stalled for at least as long, or longer, and nominees who were favorably reported last year, last November, still being obstructed.

This confirmation was needlessly delayed for no good purpose. The services of this judge are sorely needed in the Northern District of Illinois. I congratulate Mr. Feinerman and his family on his confirmation today.

The Senate Republican leadership refuses to enter into time agreements on pending judicial nominations. That stalling and obstruction is unprecedented. They refuse to enter into a time agreement to consider the North Carolina nominees to the Fourth Circuit, who were reported in January, despite the fact that one was reported unanimously and one with only a single negative vote. They refuse to enter into a time agreement to debate and vote on the Sixth Circuit nominee from Tennessee who was reported last November. I have told Senator Alexander that all Democrats are prepared to vote on that nomination, and have agreed to do so since November. It is his own leadership that continues to obstruct the nominee.

The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. A useful comparison is that in 2002, the second year of the Bush administration, the Democratic Senate majority's hard work led to the confirmation of 72 Federal circuit and district judges nominated by a President from the other party. In this second year of the Obama administration, we have confirmed just 22 so far--72 to 22.

In the first 2 years of the Bush administration, we confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district court judges. So far in the first 2 years of the Obama administration, the Republican leadership has successfully obstructed all but 34 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--100 to 34. We confirmed twice that many in just 2002. Meanwhile Federal judicial vacancies around the country hover around 100.

By this date in President Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 57 of his judicial nominees. Despite the fact that President Obama began sending us judicial nominations two months earlier than did President Bush, the Senate has to date only confirmed 34 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--57 to 34.

Last year, Senate Republicans refused to move forward on judicial nominees. The Senate confirmed the fewest judges in 50 years. The Senate Republican leadership allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered and confirmed despite the availability of many more for final action. They have continued their obstruction throughout this year. By every measure, the Republican obstruction is a disaster for the Federal courts and for the American people.

To put this into historical perspective, consider this: In 1982, the second year of the Reagan administration, the Senate confirmed 47 judges. In 1990, the second year of the George H.W. Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 55 judges. In 1994, the second year of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed 99 judges. In 2002, the second year of the George W. Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 72 judges. The only year comparable to this year's record- setting low total of 16 was 1996, when the Republican Senate majority refused to consider President Clinton's judicial nominees and only 17 were confirmed all session.

Senate Democrats moved forward with judicial nominees whether the President was Democratic, 1994, or Republican, 1982, 1990, 2002, and whether

they were in the Senate majority, 1990, 1994, 2002, or in the Senate minority, 1982. Senate Republicans, by contrast, have shown an unwillingness to consider judicial nominees of Democratic Presidents, 1996, 2009, 2010.

Over the last recess, I sent a letter to Senator McConnell and to the majority leader concerning these matters. In that letter, I urged, as I have since last December, the Senate to schedule votes on these nominations without further obstruction or delay. I called on the Republican leadership to work with the majority leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus nominations--many, like that finally being considered today, I expect will be confirmed unanimously--and consent to time agreements on those on which debate is requested. As I said in the letter, if there are judicial nominations that Republicans truly wish to filibuster--after arguing during the Bush administration that such action would be unconstitutional and wrong--then they should so indicate to allow the majority leader to seek cloture to end the filibuster. It is outrageous that the majority leader will be forced to file cloture petitions to get votes on the North Carolina, Tennessee and other nominees.

After this confirmation, there will still be 22 judicial nominees favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee being stalled from Senate consideration by the Republican leadership.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this morning, the Supreme Court concluded its work for the term and, accordingly, it was Justice John Paul Stevens' last day on the Court. This afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee began the hearing on the nomination of Elena Kagan to succeed Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Solicitor General Kagan appropriately included a tribute to Justice Stevens in her opening remarks. The Nation is indebted to Justice Stevens for his decades of service to this country, from his days as a Navy intelligence officer during World War II for which he was awarded a Bronze Star, to his contributions as a circuit judge, to his 35 years on our highest Court and his leadership there.

When I visited with Justice Stevens earlier this year he shared with me the note President Ford had written a year before his death in which the President said: ``I am prepared to allow history's judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination 30 years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' President Ford was justifiably proud of his nomination. Despite those on the far right who have ranted against Justice Stevens' refusal to be bound by narrow, conservative ideology and who have criticized his good judgment--just as they have Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice David Souter--his was principled jurisprudence founded on adherence to the rule of law and

an appreciation for the effects of decisions.

His was the first Supreme Court nomination on which I have been privileged to vote. I have never regretted supporting his confirmation. Just as I reached across the political aisle to vote for Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Souter, who were nominated by Republican Presidents, I have urged Senate Republicans to fairly consider President Obama's nominations.

Justice Stevens has written important decisions upholding the power of Congress to pass legislation to protect hard-working Americans. He brought to his opinions a keen understanding of the distinct roles set forth in our Constitution for courts and for our democratically elected Congress, and a respect for both. In Gonzales v. Raich and in Tennessee v. Lane, Justice Stevens authored the Supreme Court's opinions upholding Congress' actions. I suspect these precedents will be even more important as the Supreme Court continues to examine laws passed by Congress to protect Americans from discriminatory health insurance policies and fraudulent Wall Street practices.

A decade ago, the Supreme Court overreached and unnecessarily waded into the political thicket to award the presidency in a close election to George W. Bush. In his dissent, Justice Stevens lamented that the decision would damage the Court's reputation and it did. He noted: ``Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.''

While the public's memory of that partisan decision was receding, it came rushing back when the Supreme Court issued another election- related decision in the Citizens United case. In Citizens United, five conservative, activist Justices overturned a century of law to empower corporations to overwhelm and distort the democratic process by using corporate funds to influence elections. Those five Justices substituted their own preferences for the judgment of Congress that had built on decades of legal development to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. In order to reach its divisive decision granting corporations, banks, and insurance companies new rights to the detriment of the voices of individual Americans, the Court overstepped the proper judicial role, and rejected not just the conclusions of the elected branches, but also its own recent precedent upholding the very law it chose to overturn. In one of his most powerful dissents, Justice Stevens noted that: ``[The] Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.'' He was right, again.

I share Justice Stevens' concern for the Court's reputation. Two of the three branches of government are involved in campaigns and elections. When the American people see the third branch reaching out to influence those elections--as they did most recently in Arizona-- they rightly get suspicious of its impartiality. I hope that Elena Kagan will show the judgment and forthrightness of Justice Stevens and share our concern about the public's confidence in our judicial system. Based on her Oxford thesis almost 20 years ago, before she had even attended law school, I expect that she will. I hope that she will honor Justice Stevens' extraordinary legacy and that of the Justice for whom she clerked, Justice Thurgood Marshall, by so doing.

The country needs and deserves a Supreme Court that bases its decisions on the law and the Constitution, not politics or an ideological agenda. A recent pattern of Supreme Court decisions has emerged by a conservative, activist majority. These opinions have twisted both the Constitution and the law to favor big corporations over the interests of hard-working Americans.

The most recent example of this conservative activism came just last week in a case called Rent-a-Center v. Jackson when they distorted their own precedent the clear congressional intent in passing the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA. Congress did not intend the FAA to apply to employment cases and certainly did not intend involuntary and unconscionable provisions requiring binding mandatory arbitration to override civil rights protections against racial discrimination and retaliation, as was allowed in that case. The five Justices distorted the law to forbid almost all court challenges to arbitration. In doing so, the court stripped quintessential civil rights protections that Congress has passed over the last several decades for hundreds of thousands of Americans who work under mandatory arbitration agreements. It is artifice and activism to the detriment of hard-working Americans who deserve their day in court.

The law is not a game. The law is intended to serve the people-- protecting the freedom of individuals from the tyranny of government or the mob, and helping to organize our society for the good of all. No Justice should substitute his or her personal preferences and overrule congressional efforts passed into law to protect hard-working Americans pursuant to our constitutional role. Judges must approach every case with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and the rule of law. I was encouraged to hear Solicitor General Kagan voice similar views in her eloquent opening statement today. I hope Americans took the opportunity to see and hear from the nominee herself. If they did, I suspect that they will be supportive.

Tomorrow each Senator on the Judiciary Committee, whether Republican and Democrat, will have 30 minutes to question her. I urge Senators to listen to Solicitor General Kagan's responses and to approach the hearing with the same openmindedness and impartiality that we expect from Supreme Court Justices.

Mr. President, this week, we commemorate the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. June 26, 2010, marks the 23rd anniversary of the day on which the Convention Against Torture--CAT--took effect. I am proud that the United States is a signatory to this important Convention and defends human dignity by criminalizing acts of torture. Along with the other 75 nations that have ratified the Convention, we affirm our commitment to hold those responsible for torture accountable for their actions.

I have worked hard for many years to improve the investigation and prosecution of international human rights abusers. I worked for several years to develop and secure passage of the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act. This act, which became law in 2004, expanded the mission of the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice from denaturalizing Nazi war criminals, to investigating, extraditing, or denaturalizing any alien who participated in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killing abroad. It has prompted, among other accomplishments, the deportation of a former Ethiopian official, Kelbessa Negewo. Negewo was accused of abuse and torture during the period of the Red Terror in Ethiopia in the mid-1970s. He is now serving a life sentence for torture and multiple killings in Ethiopia. This case proves that those who have committed reprehensible acts of torture and seek safe haven in the United States will not find refuge here.

In order to further improve our ability to identify and prosecute human rights abusers, I am proud to have cosponsored the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009. Signed into law at the end of last year, this legislation created a new section within the criminal division of the Department of Justice with responsibility for prosecuting serious human rights offenses. Additionally, it amends a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent those who have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide from obtaining eligibility for protection under our asylum laws.

In addition to strengthening our ability to investigate and hold human rights violators accountable, I have worked hard to ensure that victims of atrocity can find protection here in the United States. In March of this year, I introduced S.3113, the Refugee Protection Act. This law will renew America's commitment to the ideals embodied in the Refugee Convention and eliminate cumbersome procedural delays currently faced by refugees who flee persecution or torture.

For those who have suffered mental, physical, and emotional harm as a result of torture, I have consistently supported funding for rehabilitation and treatment. In my work on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, we secured $7,100,000 in the fiscal year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and an additional $13,000,000 for Victims of Torture programs and activities at U.S. Agency for International Development. In order to help these victims heal, we must continue to provide resources to aid physical and psychological recovery.

Vermont has also become home to many resettled refugees who have been victims of torture. A group called New England Survivors of Torture and Trauma--NESTT--has been established by the Department of Psychology at the University of Vermont and the Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates to offer medical, psychological, legal and social services in an effort to help address the needs of this community.

As we mark this year's United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, we must acknowledge that the United States has not always lived up to its ideals. Under the previous administration, abhorrent acts were authorized by a series of Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, memoranda, and a dark chapter in American history was written. Under questionable legal guidance that failed to meet ethical standards, acts occurred in the interrogation of terrorist suspects that failed to reflect the fundamental American ideals of justice, dignity, and human equality. Nothing has done more to damage our world standing and moral authority than this revelation. It is vital that the United States reclaim its historic role as a world leader on issues of human rights.

The claim by some that there is a necessary choice between ensuring security and upholding liberty is a falsehood. Until we understand what led to the production of the OLC memos and the acts that followed, we cannot move forward with a clear moral conscience. The imperative to discover what led to these events is stronger than ever. I remain a committed advocate of the establishment of an independent, nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry to gather facts about how we arrived at this place. We must understand the mistakes of the previous administration to ensure that they never happen again. We cannot, and we must not ignore this chapter in the history of our Nation.

As we mark the Day in Support of Victims of Torture, we can begin to right these wrongs by renewing our commitment to recognize those who have suffered atrocities but fight on with enormous courage. To those around the world who have endured the unspeakable, we remember you. To those who have survived torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment at the

hands of their government, we call upon your voices to help end these reprehensible acts. And as the United States, we call upon every nation to join us in the fight to eradicate torture in all of its forms.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for taking another step down the long road towards peace. Last week the Saville Inquiry, the result of a 10-year investigation into the ``Bloody Sunday'' tragedy in Northern Ireland on January 30, 1972, was finally made public.

The inquiry definitively concluded that British Army soldiers were responsible for the shooting deaths of 14 pro-Catholic marchers. The terrible events, which took place against a backdrop of years of rioting, paramilitary violence and police brutality, contributed to increased hatred and mistrust on both sides, and led to over two more decades of violence and terror for the people of Northern Ireland.

The findings reversed those of a 1972 commission which had laid blame for the killings on the victims themselves. Parents passed away without the knowledge that their children killed that day were not at fault.

Upon the release of the new report, British Prime Minister David Cameron publicly accepted responsibility for the killings and apologized on behalf of his country for the unjustified actions of the Army. He acknowledged the great complexity engrained in the dozens of years of fighting in Northern Ireland--thousands of people were killed and terrible atrocities committed by all parties. But he also stated that the facts in this report cannot be overlooked: British Army soldiers unjustly took the lives of innocent civilians.

Self-reflection is an indispensable quality in a democracy. It is difficult for a nation to admit that the men and women protecting us are responsible for reprehensible acts, but it is undeniable that, in furtherance of truth and justice, no one in our society can be above the law.

Lasting peace comes about through the hard work, honesty and patience of those on all sides.

I extend my deepest condolences to the families of the victims and am grateful to them for their years of patience during the investigation.

I commend the people of Northern Ireland for their continued commitment to resolving their differences through the political process, as challenging as it often is, and working to leave behind the violent divisions of the past.

And I also applaud Prime Minister Cameron, the Inquiry, and the British people for acknowledging a painful truth after 38 years, and, in doing so, helping to further the cause of peace in Northern Ireland.

I ask unanimous consent that the Prime Minister's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on June 7, the head of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, a U.N. supported body set up to investigate organized crime and clandestine groups in Guatemala, resigned. In a press conference, he highlighted problems with Guatemala's newly selected attorney general, who he accused of trying to undermine the Commission's investigations. He also described a general lack of cooperation from the Guatemalan Government in CICIG's mission.

Not long ago, on April 5, I spoke in this Chamber of Guatemala's need for an attorney general with the integrity, experience, courage and determination to show that justice can be a reality for all the people of Guatemala regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or economic status. Unfortunately, President Colom's choice fell short on all counts.

This concerns me greatly. The Commission was created three years ago, at the request of the Guatemalan Government and with the approval of the legislature. It was intended to support Guatemala in investigating and dismantling powerful criminal networks deeply entrenched in state institutions and to help strengthen the capacity of the country's dysfunctional judicial system. Since its creation, CICIG has received substantial political and financial backing from the international community, including the United States. I have been a strong supporter of the Commission, and I was encouraged that the Guatemalan Government and the legislature had the political courage to back a serious effort to challenge the organized criminal structures that threaten Guatemala's fragile democracy.

Under the leadership of internationally respected Spanish jurist and prosecutor Carlos Castresana, the CICIG, with dedicated Guatemalan personnel from the Public Ministry, the police, and the support of the courts, has made significant, indeed historic, progress in combating organized crime and ending impunity. Its work has led to the successful investigation of high-profile cases, the arrest of dozens of government officials and ex-military officers, and the purge of thousands of police officers linked to illegal groups.

Having seen that progress, I was saddened to learn of Director Castresana's resignation. I commend him, the Commission's staff, and the many Guatemalans who have supported the CICIG for their courage and resolve.

The CICIG is a ground-breaking effort and one of the few successful strategies in the fight against organized crime and rampant institutional corruption in Guatemala. Its efforts must continue. Both the U.N. and the Guatemalan Government need to act swiftly

and decisively if the CICIG is to continue as a meaningful body. I urge U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to appoint a new CICIG Commissioner with demonstrated expertise in investigating and prosecuting organized criminal networks so the advances of the CICIG continue under new leadership. Equally important is the integrity and continuity of CICIG's professional staff.

In Guatemala, the government needs to address the problems that so frustrated Director Castresana. Fortunately, Guatemala's Constitutional Court annulled the selection of the attorney general, who subsequently resigned. This is a positive step, but it needs to be followed up. Guatemala's next attorney general should have a strong commitment to working closely with and supporting the efforts of the CICIG, as well as reform of the National Police, the establishment of a high impact court for cases of organized crime with heightened security for judges, witnesses and prosecutors, a maximum security jail, and other initiatives by the Guatemalan Legislature that would facilitate the investigation and prosecution of organized crime.

It is not just the attorney general, however. Implementation of many of the CICIG's recommendations has been repeatedly delayed. The entire Guatemalan Government--the executive, legislature and the courts--must act decisively to demonstrate that it can implement urgent anti- impunity reforms, strengthen and professionalize its law enforcement and judicial institutions, and prove that it can be a partner in the fight against organized crime. Reforming the National Police, which is widely perceived as corrupt, ineffective and unaccountable, and whose officers are under-paid, under-trained, and under-equipped, is a critical priority. I hope there is convincing progress in these areas soon.

The United States is providing assistance to bolster Guatemala's institutions, particularly through our Central America Regional Security Initiative. But as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I would find it difficult to justify investing further resources in Guatemala's judicial system unless its own government demonstrates a strong commitment to ending impunity and combating organized criminal networks and corruption, which must be rooted out from their entrenched positions within Guatemala's state institutions.

I urge the Guatemalan Government to show, at this critical moment, its firm commitment to the CICIG and to taking the steps necessary to end impunity and strengthen the rule of law so the United States can continue to partner with Guatemala to tackle its many challenges.