Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating.

As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim.

Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal.

The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states.

In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job.

Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms.

Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic.

In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong.

Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies.

As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating.

As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim.

Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal.

The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states.

In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job.

Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms.

Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic.

In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong.

Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies.

As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion.

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

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

Mr. President, it is interesting, as the distinguished Presiding Officer reported, that we are going to have these nominees. I say it is interesting because the Senate is being allowed to confirm only 3 of 19 judicial nominations that have been reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the past several months, but they have been stalled by the Republican leadership.

The distinguished Presiding Officer is one of the most valued members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has seen time and time again, we vote a nominee out, with every single Republican voting for the person and every single Democrat voting for the person. Then the nominee spends months waiting because they are being stalled by the Republican side of the aisle.

Of course, it is far more than just an annoyance to the nominees who are being stalled. Say, for instance, that someone receives a nomination from the President of the United States to become a judge. Perhaps they are in a law firm. The partners all come in, congratulate the nominee, and say: This is absolutely wonderful. When are you leaving?

Now, as a practical matter this person cannot take on new cases, and the law firm has to be hesitant about what they take on so they do not have a conflict of interest later on before the Court. One can see how almost childish it becomes now to hold up a nominee who, eventually, when they are finally allowed to have a vote, will be confirmed unanimously or close to unanimously.

In the meantime, their lives have been disrupted, the judiciary itself is put in disarray, people question our judiciary which is supposed to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and all of a sudden, looks as though it is ping pong.

The nominees we have here, these three women, were confirmed in early March. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I were there. They all were reported out without a single objection from the Senate Judiciary Committee, in early March. Three exceptional women. And these three women have been delayed for this considerable period of time by the Republican objections. There is no explanation; no excuse; no reason for these months of delay of these women, especially when all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic and Republican, voted for these three women.

But they are just 3 of the backlog of 26 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate action, and 19 of the 26 were reported by the Judiciary Committee without a single negative vote from any Republican or Democratic Senator on the committee. This is not fair to the nominees, certainly not fair to these three women. It is not fair to any of the other nominees. In addition, 6 of the 7 Republicans on the Committee voted in favor of nominee Judge Wynn to the Fourth Circuit, and nearly half of the Republicans on the Committee supported the nomination of Jane Stranch to the Sixth Circuit. It is not fair to these nominees and it is not fair to the Federal judiciary. Still Republicans refuse to enter into time agreements on these nominations. This stalling and obstruction is unprecedented.

The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. By this date in President Bush's presidency--and I was chairman at that time--the Senate had confirmed 57 of his judicial nominees, both district court judges and courts of appeal.

Even after the three today will all be confirmed unanimously, the comparison will stand at 28 to 57. That is still less than half of what we were able to achieve by this date in 2002. I mention that because we had a Democratic majority and a Republican President, and we were treating President Bush's nominees far more fairly than they are treating President Obama's nominees.

What makes it even worse than playing politics with the independent judiciary is that Federal judicial vacancies around the country hover around 100. It has been nearly a month since the Senate confirmed a judicial nominee. None of the more than two dozen available for consideration before the Memorial Day recess were considered. This Republican obstruction is unprecedented. This is not how the Senate should act, nor how the Senate has conducted its business in the past. This is new and this is wrong.

In May, just before the last recess, the Republican leader implied in a statement before this body that the Republican obstruction is merely a ``sequencing'' of judicial nominations that ``is acceptable to both sides''. That is not true.

Over the recess, I sent a letter to Senator McConnell and to the majority leader concerning these matters. In that letter, I urge as I have since last December, that the Senate schedule votes on judicial nominees without further obstruction and delays; vote them up or vote them down. I called on Republican leadership to work with the majority leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus nominations--many of which I expect will be confirmed unanimously--and consent to time agreements on those which debate is requested. As I said in the letter, if there are judicial nominations that Republicans truly wish to filibuster--after they argued during the Bush administration that such actions would be unconstitutional and wrong--then they should so indicate to allow the majority leader to seek cloture to end the filibuster. Otherwise it is time to vote.

I would think that there should also be some respect for the committee where every single Republican and every single Democrat voted for them. Vote for them. Vote up or vote down. We are not elected to vote ``maybe.'' There are only 100 of us for 300 million Americans, and the American people expect us to say ``yes'' or say ``no,'' not ``maybe.'' This delay is a big ``maybe.'' It is wrong. It is unfair to these judicial nominees. It is unfair to the independence of the Federal judiciary. It is unfair to the people of America. It is certainly unprecedented in my 36 years here. I have never seen anything such as this.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination of Judge Fleissig to the Eastern District of Missouri more than three months ago, on March 4. She is currently a Federal magistrate judge in that district, previously serving as that district's U.S. Attorney, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a civil litigator. Judge Fleissig earned the highest possible rating-- unanimously well qualified--from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. She has the support of both of her home state Senators, Republican Senator Kit Bond and Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill.

Judge Lucy Koh is nominated to fill a vacancy on the Northern District of California determined by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be a judicial emergency. Judge Koh's nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent on March 4, more than three months ago. If confirmed, she will be the first Korean American woman in the Nation to serve as a Federal judge. In addition, she would become the first Asian American to serve on the district court bench in the 150-year history of the Northern District of California. Currently a judge on the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Koh previously practiced law at two Northern California firms and worked as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. She also served in the U.S. Department of Justice and she worked for one year as a fellow on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Koh has the strong support of both her home state Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson has been nominated to the Southern District of Indiana. If confirmed, Judge Magnus-Stinson will be the third female district court judge in Indiana history. The Judiciary Committee favorable reported her nomination, by unanimous consent, on March 11, nearly three months ago. Judge Magnus-Stinson is currently a Federal magistrate judge on the court to which she is now nominated. She has 15 years of judicial experience, including 12 years as a judge in the major felony division of the Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Magnus-Stinson well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Judge Magnus-Stinson has the support of both home state Senators, Republican Senator Lugar and Democratic Senator Bayh.

I congratulate the three nominees who will finally be considered and confirmed today.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 2, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senate Leaders: I was very disappointed that in his

statement last Thursday evening about the lack of progress on

filling judicial vacancies Senator McConnell left the

impression that the halting pace of Senate consideration of

President's Obama's judicial nominations is merely a

``sequencing'' of judicial nominations that ``is acceptable

to both sides.'' I do not think that is an accurate

description of what has led to only 12 Federal circuit and

district court nominees being considered all last year and

only 13 so far this year.

As you know, I have spoken to these matters a number of

times over the last several months and have since last

December been urging the Republican leadership to agree to

consider and approve the noncontroversial nominees and enter

into time agreements to debate those they believe require

Senate discussion, but to end the obstruction and unnecessary

delays.

As the Senate recessed for Memorial Day, there remained a

backlog of 26 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate action.

Nineteen of the 26 were reported by the Judiciary Committee

without a single negative vote from any Republican or any

Democratic Senator on the Committee. In my view the cause of

that backlog is Republican refusal to agree to consider these

nominations in a timely fashion. In addition, six of the

seven Republicans on the Committee voted in favor of Judge

Wynn to the Fourth Circuit, and nearly half the Republicans

on the Committee supported Jane Stranch's nomination to the

Fourth Circuit. I have been supporting Senator Alexander's

efforts to get Senate consideration of the Stranch nomination

for months.

The same is true of the two North Carolina nominees to the

Fourth Circuit supported by Senators Hagan and Burr. It is

Republican refusal to enter into time agreements on these

nominations that has preventing their consideration and

confirmation by the Senate. In all, 26 judicial nominations

are currently being stalled from consideration and

confirmation of which only three have been scheduled for

consideration next week.

Senate Republicans have only allowed the Senate to consider

25 Federal circuit and district court nominations during the

entire Obama presidency. The dozen considered in 2009 was the

lowest confirmation total in more than 50 years. The stalling

and obstruction is unprecedented.

The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President

Bush's judicial nominees in the second half of 2001 and

through 2002. 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 President Bush had, the

Senate has only confirmed 25 of his Federal circuit and

district court nominees to date. The comparison is 25 to 57--

and this is while Federal judicial vacancies around the

country remain over 100 with 40 of those vacancies

categorized as ``judicial emergency vacancies'' by the

Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

During the 17 months that I chaired the Judiciary Committee

during President Bush's first two years in office, the Senate

confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. Rather than continue

that kind of cooperation, Senate Republicans have chosen to

delay consideration of virtually every judicial nominee of

President Obama's. Judge David Hamilton was unsuccessfully

filibustered. The Majority Leader was forced to file cloture

to get votes on the nominations of Judge Barbara Keenan and

Judge Denny Chin. Both were then confirmed unanimously by the

Senate. These are a few of the more than 20 nominations on

which the Majority Leader has had to file cloture in order to

secure a vote.

Before the Memorial Day recess in 2002, there were only six

judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary

Committee left awaiting final consideration by the Senate and

they had all been reported within the last week before the

recess began. They were each confirmed promptly in the June

2002 work period. This year, by contrast, Senate Republicans

have stalled nominations reported as long ago as last

November and only one of the 26 was reported close to this

recess. More than two dozen judicial nominees have been

languishing without final Senate action because of Republican

obstruction. This is not how the Senate should act, nor how

the Senate has conducted its business in the past. This is

new and it is wrong.

The judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar

number 26. They were each considered and favorably reported

by the Senate Judiciary Committee after a hearing. They are

each still awaiting final Senate action because the

Republican leadership has refused for some time to agree to

their consideration. As I have consistently urged since last

December, the Senate should vote on all of them without

further obstruction or delay.

The way to do that is for the Republican leadership to work

with the Majority Leader and agree to time agreements on

those on which debate is requested. 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

and the Majority Leader can proceed to that matter and seek

cloture to end the filibuster.

I again urge the Republican leadership, as I have

consistently since last December, to work with the Majority

Leader to take up and confirm the judicial nominees that are

not controversial and can be confirmed without further delay

by voice vote or a roll call and to enter into time

agreements on the others so that the Majority Leader can

schedule their consideration by the Senate.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy,

Chairman.

Mr. President, if I can get the attention of the Republican leader, I understand on the Republican side there is a wish for a rollcall vote on this nomination but not on the next; is that correct?

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if nobody else seeks recognition, I yield back my time.

Madam President, 3 weeks from now the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the confirmation hearing for President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last year, after reviewing her record, a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to confirm Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States, actually the first woman in America's history to serve as Solicitor General. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, oftentimes the Solicitor General is referred to as the ``Tenth Justice''. Not only are we familiar with Elena Kagan from our review of her nomination last year, but we have already received an extraordinary amount of information about her in connection with this nomination.

Last week we received nearly 50,000 pages of documents from the Clinton Library related to Elena Kagan's service and her significant role in the Clinton White House. My initial review of these documents shows her to have been a pragmatic and thoughtful adviser to President Clinton as she helped him to advance the goals of his administration.

As a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, as a professor, as a policy adviser to the President, and dean of Harvard Law School, and as Solicitor General of the United States, she appeared to have a clear grasp of how to apply her abilities to meet the challenges of each of these varied positions. I point out in that regard not only is she the first woman to become Solicitor General, she was the first woman to become dean of the Harvard Law School.

I went back and I doublechecked with my staff, Bruce Cohen, Jeremy Paris, and others on my staff, and I said: How does the information we have received on this nomination compare with the Roberts or Alito nominations when there was a Republican President? I am told the committee has received more information from the administration than was made available at this point in the confirmation process for either the Roberts or Alito nominations.

Last year we considered President Obama's nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Although she was confirmed with 68 votes, I was disappointed that so many chose to oppose her historic nomination, the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, only the third woman.

I suspected and do suspect that many of those who voted against her confirmation will come to regret their action, if they do not already. Regrettably, many of the Senate Republicans, now that President Obama is in the White House, seem to want to apply a different standard from when they were considering President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court.

As we begin the process of considering a new nominee to the Supreme Court, I candidly admit that after watching the unfounded opposition to the Sotomayor nomination last year, I would not be surprised if a majority of Republican Senators were to vote against Solicitor General Elena Kagan, despite her qualifications and no matter how she answers questions during the course of the hearing. I have joked that if President Obama nominated Moses, the lawgiver, or Mother Theresa, Senate Republicans would vote against the nomination. Such a willingness of many Republican Senators to heed the extreme ideological test imposed by the far right.

Indeed, were Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the nominee pending today, or Justice David Souter, or Justice John Paul Stevens, or, for that matter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, it is a sad reality that a majority of current Republican Senators would likely vote against their confirmations, as well, for failing the extreme ideological litmus test. Each of these Justices was nominated by a Republican President. I voted in favor of each of them.

Each of these Justices served or are serving now with distinction, and all still contribute to the Nation and its courts. The American people are fortunate to have had all of them serve on the Supreme Court.

Regrettably, most Senate Republicans, now that President Obama is in the White House, seem to want to apply a different standard from when they were considering President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court. I welcome questions to Solicitor General Kagan about judicial independence. But let's be fair. Let us listen to her answers. No one should presume that this intelligent woman who has excelled during every part of her varied and distinguished career lacks the independence to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, many of the justices who are most revered in this country for their independence came to the Court with a background not unlike that of the nominee.

Not so long ago, Republicans Senators contended that a nominee's judicial philosophy was irrelevant. All that should matter, they claimed, was that the nominee was qualified, had gone to elite schools, and had good character. Well, Solicitor General Kagan excelled at Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. As I have mentioned, she was the first woman to serve as Dean of Harvard Law School in its 193-year history, and was respected and admired for her inclusiveness. She is the first woman to serve as Solicitor General of the United States in that office's 140-year history. Throughout her career, no one has questioned her character or her integrity. She obviously meets and exceeds the qualifications standard previously espoused by the Senate Republicans.

Now they apparently want to examine something else, which they will call her ``judicial philosophy'' or ``independence''. But it is not her philosophy, judgment, or her independence that matters to them. What they really want is assurance that she will rule the way they want so that they will get the end results they want in cases before the Supreme Court. Lack of such assurances was why they and the conservative right wing vetoed President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, the third woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court in our history and the only one not to be confirmed. They forced Ms. Miers to withdraw even while Democrats were preparing to proceed with her hearing. They do not want an independent judiciary. They demand Justices who guarantee the results they want, and that is their ideological litmus test.

I reject the ideological litmus test that Senate Republicans would apply to Supreme Court nominees. Unlike those on the right who drove President Bush to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers, and those who opposed Justice Sotomayor, I do not require a Supreme Court nominee to swear fealty to the judicial approach and outcomes ordained by adhering to the narrow views of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. I expect judges and Justices to faithfully interpret the Constitution and apply the law, and also to look to the legislative intent of our laws and to consider the consequences of their decisions. Based on the review I have made of Solicitor General Kagan's career, I say frankly that I expect she and I will not always agree. I do not agree with every decision Justice Stevens has written, but I have such enormous respect for his judgment, this giant in the law.

I do not always agree with Justice O'Connor, nor with Justice Souter. I have my disagreements with some of Justice Kennedy's decisions. But I have never regretted my vote in favor of their confirmation, because I respect their independence.

I said only half facetiously when President Obama asked me: Why did some come out against Elena Kagan within minutes of her nomination, before they knew anything about her? I said: You have to understand, if you would have nominated Moses, the lawgiver, some of those same people would oppose.

The former First Lady Laura Bush was asked recently about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan and she said: I think it's great. I'm really glad that there will be three [women serving on the Supreme Court] if she is confirmed.

When Justice O'Connor was asked about the nomination she said that she was ``pleased'' that Solicitor General Kagan seemed ``very well qualified academically'' and should be confirmed and that ``it's fine, just fine'' that she is without prior judicial experience. Over the weekend Justice O'Connor elaborated saying: ``There is no reason you should have served on the Federal court bench'' before becoming a Justice. She had not. Justice Scalia went even farther on that score, saying recently that he was ``happy to see that this latest nominee is not a Federal judge--and not a judge at all''.

The American people elected the first African-American President, and he is a leader who is committed to the Constitution and rule of law. With his initial selection to the Supreme Court, he named Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to serve on the High Court. She was confirmed last year and has been a welcome addition to the Supreme Court. Now he has nominated only the fifth woman in the Nation's history to the Court, a nominee who can bring the number of women serving on the Court to an historic high-water mark of three from the time just a little over a year ago when it was just down to one.

This month Justice Stevens will be leaving the Court after nearly 35 years of dedicated public service. The Nation owes him a great debt. When I visited with him earlier this year, Justice Stevens shared with me the note from President Ford in which he recounted that he was prepared to allow history's judgment of his presidency to rest on his nomination of John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. I hope that President Obama can look at his Supreme Court appointments, long after his presidency has ended, and feel the same way about his nominees that President Ford felt about Justice Stevens.

Mr. President, amendment No. 4245 to H.R. 4899, the fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, provides the Department of State with authority to transfer up to $300,000,000 between the ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and ``Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'' accounts in chapter 10 of the bill, to respond to potential increases in the cost of security for civilian personnel. This authority is not intended to be used to support site development or construction of permanent consulates or other such facilities.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a heinous crime that occurred in El Salvador that has yet to be solved. On June 18, 2009, Gustavo Marcelo Rivera, an activist and community leader from the city of San Isidro, Cabaas, was kidnapped. His tortured remains were found on July 1 at the bottom of a dry well in the village of Agua Zarca. The cause of death apparently was asphyxiation, and evidence reportedly indicated that his kidnappers may have kept him alive for several days before murdering him.

It is my understanding that four suspects, gang members, have been identified by the Attorney General's office as key suspects in the crime. Apparently, the prosecutor's hypothesis is that Mr. Rivera was with these gang members and was killed after a heated argument; in other words, that his death was a common crime, not a political assassination.

There is reason to suspect otherwise. Mr. Rivera was a well known community leader. He was the founder and director of the Casa de la Cultura in San Isidro, a member of the departmental board of the FMLN party, and the director of the Association of Friends of San Isidro Cabaas. He had been a defender of the environment, and he was outspoken in his opposition to industrial mining by the Canadian mining company Pacific Rim in San Isidro. In addition, I am informed that during the January 2009 municipal elections, Mr. Rivera and other leaders denounced suspected electoral fraud in his municipality. As a result of his activism, Mr. Rivera was the target of threats and accusations and someone reportedly tried to run over him with a car. In addition, the brutal manner in which he was tortured and killed suggests that this was a premeditated crime that may have been intended as a warning to other community activists.

Crimes like this are all too common in El Salvador today, and they concern not only the Salvadoran people but those of us who follow developments in that country. Rarely are competent investigations performed, and almost never is anyone convicted and punished. Impunity is the norm.

I urge the Attorney General to conduct a thorough, transparent, and credible investigation to ensure that not only those who tortured and killed Mr. Rivera are brought to justice, but anyone who may have ordered such a heinous crime is also prosecuted and punished. Democracy is fragile in El Salvador and it cannot survive without a functioning justice system and responsible judicial authorities who have the people's confidence.

I have strongly supported assistance for El Salvador. In the supplemental appropriations bill we have been debating this week, I included $25,000,000 for El Salvador to help rebuild schools, roads, and other infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed during Hurricane Ida last November. Some 150 Salvadorans lost their lives in that disaster. Those funds were not requested by the President in the supplemental bill. I included them because I felt we should help El Salvador rebuild.

But I also feel strongly about justice in El Salvador, whose people suffered from years of civil war during the 1980s. Human rights defenders, journalists, and community activists are increasingly threatened and killed. How the Rivera case is resolved will be a measure of whether the Government of El Salvador is serious about defending the rights of its citizens who courageously speak out against injustice, and upholding the rule of law.

Mr. President, as the Senate recesses for Memorial Day, I wish the Republican leadership had worked with us to clear the nominations that have been pending on the calendar for far too long. There is now a backlog of 26 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate action. Nineteen of the 26 were reported by the Judiciary Committee without a single negative vote from any Republican or any Democratic Senator on the committee. There is no reason, nor is there any excuse, for the Senate not having promptly considered and confirmed those judicial nominees. Two other nominations received only one or as few as four negative votes. That means that six of the seven Republicans voted in favor of Judge Wynn to the Fourth Circuit, and nearly half the Republicans on the committee supported Jane Stranch's nomination to the Fourth Circuit, as does Senator Alexander. Still Republicans refuse to enter into time agreements on those nominations, the four others or, for that matter, any of the 26 judicial nominations they are stalling from consideration and confirmation.

The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. 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 2 months earlier than President Bush had, the Senate has only confirmed 25 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees to date.

Federal judicial vacancies remain over 100 around the country. Yet 26 judicial nominations considered and favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee remain stalled awaiting final Senate action. The Senate should vote on all of them without further obstruction or delay.

Before the Memorial Day recess in 2002, there were only six judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaiting final consideration by the Senate. They had all been reported within the last week before the recess began. This year, by contrast, Republicans have stalled nominations reported as long ago as last November. Only one of the 26 was reported close to this recess. The others, more than two dozen, have all been languishing without final action because of Republican obstruction. This is not how the Senate should act, nor how the Senate has conducted its business in the past. This is new and it is wrong.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will extend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, ACPERA, for an additional 10 years. This legislation ensures that the Justice Department will have the tools it

needs to effectively prosecute criminal antitrust cartels for years to come. I thank Senator Kohl for his hard work in securing passage of this important legislation.

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. ACPERA provides a necessary complement to the Justice Department's highly successful corporate leniency program by limiting civil damages recoverable against a party who submits an application for leniency. Without this legislation, potential leniency applicants could be deterred from self-reporting antitrust violations that otherwise would result in significant criminal prosecutions.

I would have preferred that ACPERA be permanently reauthorized. Even so, a 10-year extension ensures that the Justice Department can still provide applicants with certainty that the rules of the game will not suddenly shift underneath them. ACPERA's incentives are critical to the Justice Department's criminal antitrust enforcement efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work to provide the Antitrust Division to ensure it has the resources necessary to protect consumers.

Mr. President, H.R. 4899, the fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, provides the funds requested by the President for emergency assistance for Haiti related to the January 12 earthquake. In fact it provides approximately $25 million more than the request.

Although the bulk of those funds are to address the immediate needs of shelter, health care, agriculture and food security, and governance, several Senators, particularly Senator Landrieu and Senator Gillibrand, have rightly pointed out that half of Haiti's children are not in school and the country suffers from an extremely high rate of illiteracy and a tiny fraction of the trained professionals it needs. There is a dire need for school construction and equipment, teacher training, and other education assistance for Haiti's children as well as high school, vocational, college and graduate students. Haiti's future depends on an educated workforce, and the earthquake has focused attention on this need as the country struggles to recover from this latest catastrophe.

For this reason, the bill includes up to $10 million for education programs which the Appropriations Committee included even though it was not in the President's request. This is admittedly only a small amount to begin to address Haiti's education needs. Fortunately other donors, including the Inter-American Development Bank and Canada, are expected to provide significantly more funds.

Haiti will require international assistance for years to come. I hope that in future budget requests the administration will include substantially more resources to combat illiteracy and train Haiti's future workforce, because over the long term it would be hard to think of a better investment in that country.

Mr. President, I note that on page 16 of the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4899, under the heading ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'' and on page 17 under the heading ``Iraq Security Forces Fund,'' which appropriate funds for training, equipment, and other assistance for these foreign security forces, there is language that makes these funds available ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I would ask my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, whether I am correct that this ``notwithstanding'' language is not intended to apply to the

``Leahy'' vetting procedures which are designed to ensure that foreign security forces that receive U.S. assistance have not been credibly alleged to have committed violations of human rights.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Katy Lesser of Underhill, VT, for being named Vermont's 2010 Small Business Person of the Year by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Lesser is the owner of Healthy Living, a natural and organic food store in South Burlington, VT. In its 23 years of business, Healthy Living has grown from humble beginnings into a new 33,000-square-foot market with a staff of 130 employees. Healthy Living also is a leader in Vermont's sustainability movement by promoting a diverse and vibrant selection of locally grown foods and locally made products.

I had the pleasure of meeting Katy and her adult children, Eli and Nina, when they were in Washington this week for the national awards ceremony. Working at the store is a family affair, and they all put in long hours to make it go. I wish them well when they take a much needed vacation to Ireland.

Once again, I commend Katy Lesser on this well-deserved honor. I ask unanimous consent that a March 29 article from The Burlington Free Press on Katy's accomplishments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have conferred with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye. There is no objection that I ask unanimous consent to continue for a few minutes as in morning business. I make such a request.

Mr. President, I support congressional action to move past the policies that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation against men and women serving and wanting to serve in our Nation's military.

I commend Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Gates, and the President for their leadership on this important issue. America is defended by the finest military in the world. There should be no place in America, including in our military, for discrimination.

While the country and Congress work to move the country forward and open the doors of opportunity to all Americans, some still choose to sow division and partisan conflict. How ironic that the policy of nondiscrimination that Elena Kagan sought to encourage while serving as the Dean of Harvard Law School is poised to become the law of the land, while those who oppose her nomination continue to distort her lawful actions to ensure that the school followed its nondiscrimination policy.

I support the reversal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. I hope all Senators will.

Two weeks ago, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Much has been written and said about this nomination during the last 2 weeks and more will be said over the next month, as we prepare for the Judiciary Committee's hearing, which will begin on June 28. So far, there has been far too much talk about the process and too much partisanship surrounding this important matter. Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. So let us refocus on the qualifications of this extraordinary nominee, remembering that a Supreme Court Justice is there not to serve a Republican or a Democratic administration but all 300 million Americans.

When the President announced his choice back on May 10, he talked about Solicitor General Kagan's legal mind, her intellect, her record of achievement, her temperament, her fairmindedness. No one can question the intelligence or the achievements of this woman. She is at the top of the legal profession. She is no stranger to breaking glass ceilings. She was the first woman to be dean of the prestigious Harvard Law School. It was from Harvard Law School that she earned her law degree magna cum laude. Previously, she earned a degree from Oxford University and graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University. She clerked for two leading judicial figures--Judge Abner Mikva on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then on the Supreme Court for one of the most extraordinary lawyers and judges in American history, Justice Thurgood Marshall.

As an advocate, Thurgood Marshall helped change America for the better by bringing cases that challenged racial discrimination. He won an extraordinary 29 of the 32 cases he argued before the Court, one of the most outstanding records of advocacy before the Court, including the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education which helped bring an end to racial segregation in education in America, a blot on our country that was finally removed by that case.

Despite his obvious legal qualifications, when Thurgood Marshall was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Kennedy in 1961, his nomination was stalled by opponents in the Senate before he was eventually confirmed by a bipartisan vote of 54 to 16. He gave up that lifetime appointment when called upon by President Johnson to serve as Solicitor General of the United States, the top legal advocate for the United States. Now, 40 years later, it is Elena Kagan who is serving as the Solicitor General of the United States, the first woman in America's history to serve as Solicitor General.

Two score and 3 years ago, President Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Johnson said that it was ``the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.'' President Johnson was right, and that nomination helped move the country forward. The nomination was confirmed by a bipartisan Senate vote of 69-11.

The American people have now elected our first African-American President, a leader who is committed to the Constitution and rule of law. With his first selection to the Supreme Court, he named Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to serve on the high Court. She was confirmed last year and has been a welcome addition to the Supreme Court. Now he has nominated only the fourth woman in the Court's history, a nominee who when confirmed will bring the Court to a new high water mark of three women serving as Justices. Yet Senate Republicans seem to want to shift the standard from when the Senate was considering President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court--John Roberts and Samuel Alito--and to apply a new standard to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan.

I have long urged Presidents from both political parties to look outside what I have called the judicial monastery and not to feel restricted to considering only Federal appellate judges as potential Supreme Court nominees. When confirmed, Elena Kagan will be the only member of the Supreme Court who did not serve as a Federal appeals court judge. When confirmed, she will be the first nonsitting Federal judge to be confirmed to the Supreme Court in almost 30 years, since the appointment of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

When the President introduced Elena Kagan to the country, I was interested in him talking about learning from Justice Marshall that ``behind law, there are stories--stories of people's lives as shaped by the law, stories of people's lives as might be changed by the law.'' The President said that her understanding of law is not merely intellectual or ideological but how it affects the lives of people.

We heard Solicitor General Kagan earlier this month talk about the importance of upholding the rule of law and enabling all Americans to get a fair hearing. She said, ``law matters; because it keeps us safe, because it protects our most fundamental . . . freedoms; and because it is the foundation of our democracy.'' Like her, I believe law matters and matters in people's lives. The Constitution is our protection.

Since her nomination, Solicitor General Kagan has met with dozens of Senators. I understand she will conclude her meetings with the Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks. We have each had a chance to meet with her, speak with her, ask her questions, and learn more about her. At our Judiciary Committee hearing next month, the American people will have the chance to see her, hear her, and get to know her.

Fourteen months ago, the Senate considered Elena Kagan's impressive legal credentials when we confirmed her in a bipartisan vote to be the Solicitor General of the United States, the Nation's top lawyer. The person filling that vital post is informally referred to as the ``tenth Justice,'' because the Solicitor General works so closely on significant cases before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Kagan has

now argued a broad range of issues, including her successful defense of Congress's ability to protect children from pedophiles.

With this nomination, Elena Kagan follows in the footsteps of her mentor, Thurgood Marshall, who also was nominated to the Supreme Court from the position of Solicitor General. She broke the glass ceiling when she was appointed as the first woman to serve as Solicitor General, as she did when she was named the first woman to serve as dean of the Harvard Law School. They are historic accomplishments. In fact, as dean, Elena Kagan worked well with all ideological components of the faculty at Harvard. She took action to bring more conservative viewpoints to the institution and encouraged civil discourse. Those are skills that will be useful in what often appears to be a sharply divided Supreme Court.

Having counseled the President to look outside the judicial monastery, a recommendation I have made to every President since I have been here, beginning with President Ford, I was struck that the first wave of attacks by Senate Republicans to this nomination was that she lacked judicial experience. These attacks ignored Senate Republicans' own recent statements praising President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for being someone who had not served a judge, calling her a ``wonderful choice'' who would ``fill very important gaps in the Supreme Court.'' Now that a Democratic President is nominating, they reverse themselves to contend that lack of judicial experience is a matter for ``concern,'' is ``troubling,'' and a matter that ``warrants great scrutiny.'' Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. They are not suffering hobgoblins, but the Senate Republicans are moving the goalposts, and shifting the standard from when the Senate considered the Roberts and Alito nominations. Republicans should not apply a double standard to the nomination of this qualified woman.

Of course this Republican criticism ignores another key fact: They are themselves responsible for her lack of judicial experience. President Clinton nominated her to the DC Circuit in 1999 and it was Senate Republicans who refused to consider her nomination. Had they done so she would have more than 10 years of judicial experience.

Republican Senate leadership staff was recently quoted as admitting that these early attacks on Solicitor General Kagan's experience were really just a ploy in what they view as a partisan game. `` `The lack of experience isn't the put-away shot,' the aide said. `It's the door we use to get into her record.' '' This is from Roll Call, May 12, 2010. I wish Senate Republicans would not approach our constitutional responsibilities with respect to judicial confirmations as a partisan game.

This feigned criticism of her that somehow she is unqualified because she lacks judicial experience is ignorant of our history and constitutional government. It is very recently that the path to the Supreme Court has become so narrow. Indeed, nearly half of our Supreme Court Justices were nominated to the Court from a position other than a judgeship. Fifty-four of our 110 Supreme Court Justices were not serving as judges when nominated. Forty-one justices had no judicial experience at all. Let me mention a few of the distinguished Justices without prior judicial experience: Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Louis Brandeis, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Justice Byron White, Justice Robert Jackson, and Justice William Rehnquist.

Chastened after having been reminded of their recent support for President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, who had not been a judge, Senate Republicans abandoned this poll-driven line of attack. They are now trying a different tack. They contend that the President should not be nominating someone who has served in the government or his administration.

Of course, Senate Republicans did not voice any such concern before the American people elected President Obama. The most obvious example is, again, that of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. Senate Republicans did not object to Ms. Miers' nomination because she had served in the government or because she was serving as counsel to the President. They did not object that she was too close to the President and could not be independent. To the contrary, they objected and joined with extreme right-wing activists to force the President to withdraw that nomination because they feared they could not count on her enough. She did not pass their ideological litmus test. They could not be certain how she would vote and whether she would carry out their judicial agenda.

Nor did Senate Republicans express any concern when President Bush made other nominations to the Federal courts from his close advisers and team. Senate Republicans supported his nominations of Brett Kavanaugh, who was serving as his Cabinet Secretary, Jim Haynes, the loyal general counsel of the Defense Department, and Jay Bybee from his Office of Legal Counsel. The issue I raised in connection with the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General was his unfettered loyalty to President Bush and his lack of independence. No Republican joined in my concern then, but most soon after had to acknowledge that many of us had been right when we investigated White House influence in the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. I hope that Senate Republicans will not apply a new standard to Elena Kagan's nomination that was not applied when the Senate considered the nominations of those men.

Unlike these Republican critics, I have always championed judicial independence. I think it is important the judicial nominees understand that as judges they are not members of an administration, but they are judicial officers. They should not be political partisans but judges who uphold the Constitution and the rule of law for all Americans. That is what Justice Stevens did in Hamdan, which held the Bush administration's military tribunals unconstitutional, and tried to do in Citizens United, the Supreme Court's recent narrow decision in which five Justices opened the door for massive corporate spending on elections. That is why the Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 presidential election in Bush v. Gore was so jarring and wrong.

I welcome questions to the Solicitor General about judicial independence. But let us be fair. Let us listen to her answers. Let us set this overheated rhetoric aside. Let us be fair to Solicitor General Kagan, fair to her distinguished record. There is no basis to question her integrity, no reason to presume she would not be independent.

Thurgood Marshall was the Solicitor General of the United States when President Johnson nominated him to the Supreme Court. Does anyone think Justice Marshall lacked independence? Earl Warren had been designated to be Solicitor General when President Eisenhower nominated him to be Chief Justice. Does anyone contend that Chief Justice Warren lacked independence? Robert Jackson was serving as Attorney General when President Franklin Roosevelt nominated him. Does anyone contend that Justice Jackson lacked independence? Justice Byron White was serving as the Deputy Attorney General when President Kennedy nominated him. Does anyone contend that Justice White lacked independence? And, of course, John Marshall was serving as Secretary of State when President Adams nominated him to be Chief Justice. Does anyone contend that Chief Justice Marshall, the person who established the principal of judicial review, lacked independence? Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Scalia all had significant experience working in the Justice Department but no Republican questioned their independence. In fact, Solicitor General Kagan is the 19th Supreme Court nominee to be named directly from a significant executive branch position.

Before someone questions the independence of this nominee, they should have a basis. I know of none. No one should presume that this intelligent woman who has excelled during every part of her varied and distinguished career lacks independence. I know of no basis for such contention.

I look forward to the beginning of the Judiciary Committee hearings. I was amazed, flabbergasted to hear concerns about the schedule I set for her nomination. I tried to set the same schedule as that I agreed on for Justice Roberts during the Bush administration and

Justice Sotomayor during the Obama administration.

I have to admit, I did not hit it exactly. We are taking a day longer to begin hearings for Elena Kagan than for John Roberts or Sonia Sotomayor. To do it exactly on the same day, we would have to start on a Sunday, and I did not think that would be fair. So we are adding a day, and we are starting on a Monday.

I only note that when a Republican President nominated a man to the Supreme Court, the schedule was fine. When a Democratic President nominated women to the Supreme Court with exactly the same schedule, suddenly it is not a fair schedule. Maybe I am old fashioned. Maybe I am influenced by my wife, my daughter, my three granddaughters. But I think the rules ought to be the same for men and for women. That is why her schedule is the same.

Let us stop the crocodile tears on the other side about schedules. They did not complain when it was a Republican man being nominated with that schedule. Do not complain when a Democratic President nominates a woman and it is the same schedule.

I look forward to these hearings. That is when Solicitor General Kagan will finally be given the opportunity to answer questions and will, based on all I know about her, give the American people and open- minded Senators confidence in her legal knowledge and abilities. I expect that after reviewing her record and hearing from her during the Judiciary Committee's hearing, Senators on both sides of the aisle and the American people will conclude that the President has nominated an outstanding future Justice.

Mr. President, I appreciate the never-ending courtesy of the Senator from Hawaii to a more junior Senator.

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

Madam President, I wish to speak about the Sessions amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. This is the amendment that would cap discretionary spending this year and for future years, irrespective of the needs of the government and the American people.

I know our distinguished chairman, Senator Inouye, has already spoken about it. I note this is the fourth time the Senate has been asked to vote on this amendment. The last three times it was defeated. Now we have to vote on it again. Perhaps we should have a rule here that after three strikes you are out.

The amendment uses last year's budget resolution as its starting point. It will cut over $20 billion from the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request.

I share the goal of the sponsors of this amendment to limit Federal spending. Since I have been in the Senate, I have voted for billions of dollars in cuts in Federal spending. But the way this amendment is done, using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel, it arbitrarily affects every Federal program in ways that most certainly will come back to haunt us.

Not only will critical programs from defense to education to foreign policy be cut, the amendment requires a vote of three-fifths of the Senate for emergency spending, and in a mere 14 pages it seeks to basically do away with the role of the Budget Committee.

I would hate to see a situation where, if we have a flood in Mississippi, and for some reason or another a minority of Senators say: Our states didn't have a flood, so why should we vote for this? Or if there were an earthquake in California and they need three-fifths, but a minority of Senators has other priorities. That's not the way it should work.

I must admit, I take a somewhat long view of it. I have not been here as long as our distinguished chairman has or our distinguished former chairman, Senator Byrd. But I have been here longer than everybody else in this body. I urge people to be careful what they wish for. It appears that requiring 60 votes and the gridlock we are currently experiencing is not enough. The sponsors of this amendment want the body to be held hostage to a minority of two-fifths. As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said earlier, it is the wrong direction for the Senate to be going.

Let me focus my brief remarks specifically on the effect the Sessions amendment would have on important national security programs funded in the State and foreign operations budget for fiscal year 2011 which begins on October 1.

The amendment would cut $1.1 billion from the President's State and foreign operations budget request. A cut of that size would have significant and, I suspect, unintended consequences.

I hope the proponents of this amendment or their constituents are not among those who want travel overseas and want their passports processed in a timely manner.

I hope they do not mind that our embassies are not fully staffed and cannot properly represent Americans abroad. I hope if something happens to them or their constituents in Mexico, Kenya, Turkey, or any other foreign place and there is not an American consular officer who can help them in an emergency, that they will not complain because their amendment cut the funding for that consular officer's salary.

I hope it does not matter that we would only be able to fund a portion of the global health and food security initiatives which, among other things, provide funds for maternal and child health and to prevent and respond to outbreaks of deadly contagious diseases, such as cholera, Ebola, and the Asian flu.

I point out that these are not just threats in places halfway around the world, they are only a plane trip away from our shores.

I hope the sponsors of this amendment are not concerned that it may mean we have to cut funding for exchange programs for students of predominantly Muslim countries where we are trying to show a different face of America, or democracy programs in the former Soviet Union or training programs for Iraqi police officers. There is a price for everything, and the funding for State and foreign operations is one of the best bargains in the Federal budget.

Contrary to what some may believe, it consists of barely 1 percent of the entire budget. Aside from the U.S. military, it is how the United States exerts its influence around the globe. As we are trying to show in many parts of the globe, it is not just our military might that defines America, it is our global reach in humanitarian emergencies and diplomacy.

At a time when China is sharply increasing its spending for these same types of activities and extending its sphere of influence to our hemisphere and around the world because they know it is in their Nation's best interest to do so, do we really want to cut the funding that enables the United States to compete? It makes no sense.

I note that even though it is in the State Department budget, top officials at the Pentagon understand this very well. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both urged the Congress to fully fund the State and foreign operations budget. They know these are areas where our diplomats can handle things better at far less cost and with longer lasting effects.

The sponsors of this amendment have supported the deployment of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have voted to borrow the money-- the only

time, certainly, in my lifetime, that we have gone to war anywhere and not paid for it. But military force alone, even though it is exerted through great sacrifice by the very brave men and women in our military, can only provide the conditions for longer term economic and political stability in those countries. The State and Foreign Operations budget provides the funds to build that economic growth and political stability.

I ask unanimous consent the letters from both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

No one disagrees that we need to control spending. The distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee work very hard to control spending. As a member of that committee I know the votes I have cast to substantially cut spending. We need to eliminate programs that are wasteful or can no longer be justified. We need to be frugal about what new programs we fund.

But just as we are in a different world today than when I came to the Senate 35 years ago, the things we need to do to respond to the challenges of today are different than they were 35 years ago. The way we respond to those challenges is different than when the distinguished Appropriations chairman was gallantly fighting to protect our Nation in World War II--something which we all honor and the Nation has honored when he received the Congressional Medal of Honor. But he, like so many others, tried to make the world safe for democracy, but I think he also wanted to make it a world where America could achieve its goals through the strength of its ideas and not just through its military might.

This amendment is not going to make a dent in the Federal deficit by cutting $1.1 billion from the State and Foreign Operations budget. The amendment, however well intentioned, would permit a small minority of the Senate to dictate to the majority. It would limit the global influence of the United States. It would cede more of our influence to China. It would diminish our ability to develop and access export markets that are vital to our economy and vital to increasing jobs here in the United States. At worst of all, it would weaken our security alliances.

I urge Senators to reject it.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Secretary of Defense,

Pentagon,

Washington, DC, Apr 21, 2010.

Hon. Kent Conrad,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,

Mr. President, the Department of State and Foreign Operations chapter of this supplemental totals $6.17 billion, which is the same as the President's request. The bulk of these funds are for emergency operations and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Haiti.

Senator Gregg and I supported most of the President's requests, but we could not support them all and there were other items, like pandemic flu and assistance for disaster victims and refugees in other parts of the world, which we could not ignore.

We also provide additional assistance for Mexico, where drug-related violence spilling into the United States is a growing concern of many Senators, and for Jordan, a key ally in the Middle East.

We include language requiring a determination by the Secretary of State that the governments of Afghanistan and Haiti are taking necessary steps concerning transparency and corruption. We require consultation with local communities and a central role for women in decisions about assistance programs.

The funds in the State and Foreign Operations chapter of this bill are for programs that are strongly supported by both the Department of State and the Department of Defense, in countries where the United States has important national security interests.

I very much appreciate the way Senator Gregg and his staff worked with me and my staff on our chapter of this bill. At a time when it is popular to complain that Washington is ``broken,'' the Appropriations Committee continues to do important and necessary work in its traditional, bipartisan manner and I think this bill is an example of that.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran for the support they have given us during this process. I would also ask that if Members have amendments to the State and Foreign Operations chapter that they inform Senator Gregg and me as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the Department of State and Foreign Operations chapter of this supplemental totals $6.17 billion, which is the same as the President's request. The bulk of these funds are for emergency operations and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Haiti.

Senator Gregg and I supported most of the President's requests, but we could not support them all and there were other items, like pandemic flu and assistance for disaster victims and refugees in other parts of the world, which we could not ignore.

We also provide additional assistance for Mexico, where drug-related violence spilling into the United States is a growing concern of many Senators, and for Jordan, a key ally in the Middle East.

We include language requiring a determination by the Secretary of State that the governments of Afghanistan and Haiti are taking necessary steps concerning transparency and corruption. We require consultation with local communities and a central role for women in decisions about assistance programs.

The funds in the State and Foreign Operations chapter of this bill are for programs that are strongly supported by both the Department of State and the Department of Defense, in countries where the United States has important national security interests.

I very much appreciate the way Senator Gregg and his staff worked with me and my staff on our chapter of this bill. At a time when it is popular to complain that Washington is ``broken,'' the Appropriations Committee continues to do important and necessary work in its traditional, bipartisan manner and I think this bill is an example of that.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran for the support they have given us during this process. I would also ask that if Members have amendments to the State and Foreign Operations chapter that they inform Senator Gregg and me as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I strongly support the reform bill before us, S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.

I commend Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and Majority Leader Harry Reid for shepherding this significant piece of legislation through the Senate. Getting to this point was no small feat given the near-unanimous opposition to Wall Street reform that this effort has encountered from the other side of the aisle. But Senators Dodd and Reid persevered because they know that fixing our troubled financial system is absolutely, unequivocally in the best interests of our country and its citizens.

The recent financial crisis revealed several flaws in our current regulatory system. Many large Wall Street investment banks and insurance companies hid their shaky finances from stockholders and government regulators. Corporate executives saw their salaries rise to extreme heights, even as their companies were failing and seeking government assistance. Through it all, federal regulatory agencies failed to provide the necessary oversight to rein in reckless actions. If this crisis has taught us anything, it is that the look-the-other way, hands-off deregulatory policies that were in vogue in recent times can jeopardize not only private investments, but our entire economy.

The bill we are voting on today goes directly at the heart of the Wall Street excesses that brought our economy to the brink. For far too long Wall Street firms made risky bets in the dark and reaped enormous profits. Then, when their bets went sour, they turned to America's taxpayers to bail them out. This bill is about changing the culture of rampant Wall Street speculation and doing what needs to be done to get our economy back on track. We need more transparency and oversight of Wall Street, and this legislation finally will allow regulators to go after the fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation on Wall Street.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am particularly pleased that the bill includes provisions I authored to ensure law enforcement and federal agencies have the necessary tools to investigate and uncover financial crimes; to protect whistleblowers who help uncover these crimes; and to introduce true transparency and sunshine into the complex operations of large financial institutions and the federal agencies that regulate them.

Another major step forward is the derivatives section of the bill, which was authored by the Agriculture Committee on which I serve. These reforms will finally bring the $600 trillion derivatives market out of the dark and into the light of day, ending the days of backroom deals that put our entire economy at risk. The narrow end-user exemption in the bill will allow legitimate commercial interests, such as electric cooperatives and heating oil dealers, to continue hedging their business risks, but it will stop Wall Street traders from artificially driving up prices of heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and other commodities through unchecked speculation.

The bill also includes an amendment by Senator Dick Durbin that I supported to protect our small businesses from complicated predatory rules that big credit card companies impose on Vermont grocers and convenience stores. The Durbin amendment will ensure that a small business will be able to advertise a discount for paying cash, or for using one card instead of another. I do not want Vermonters to pay more for a gallon of milk just because the credit card companies are demanding a high fee on small transactions and are not allowing the grocer to ask for cash instead of credit.

I am also pleased that the bill includes an amendment I cosponsored with Senator Bernie Sanders to shine more sunshine on the bailout transactions made by the Federal Reserve. Under the Sanders amendment, the Government Accountability Office will conduct a one-time audit of all of the emergency actions the Federal Reserve has taken since the financial crisis began, to determine whether there were any conflicts of interest surrounding the Federal Reserve's emergency activities. It is time we know more about the closed-door decisions made by the Federal Reserve throughout this financial crisis.

The Senate has before it today a bill that will reign in Wall Street abuses, end government bailouts, and give everyday Americans the consumer protection they deserve and expect. I believe that cleaning up these Wall Street abuses will help build confidence in our economy and continue our progress toward economic recovery.