Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Franken in sponsoring the Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2010, SNDA, an important step in our march toward a more inclusive Nation. This bill continues the civil rights work we began earlier this Congress when I offered the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill last year. The Student Non-Discrimination Act will ensure that under Federal law, all public school children are protected equally from discrimination. Children deserve a safe environment where they can learn the skills and knowledge necessary to be good citizens.

More than 55 years ago, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to justice and equal rights for all Americans by ending racial segregation in our public schools. A unanimous Court recognized that ``it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''

Congress continued on the path of progress by passing laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These laws protected students in federally- funded public schools from discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, sex, and disability. President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, ``Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers . . . contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in . . . discrimination.''

Tragically, for far too long, U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone to public school systems that tolerate or perpetuate discrimination, harassment, and even violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``now is the time to make justice a reality'' for all of our children--now is the time for Congress to extend existing Federal protections against discrimination to all public school students.

The legislation we introduce today does just that by prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in public, non-religious, federally- funded schools.

Vermont has recognized the importance of creating a safe school environment for our children. In 1993, the State legislature enacted a law to protect school children from harassment based on sexual orientation, and in 2007, the law was strengthened to protect against harassment based on gender identity. Nine other States and the District of Columbia protect school children from discrimination based on

gender identity and sexual orientation. This legislation makes clear that it would not preempt state laws such as those in Vermont, which provide additional protections and remedies.

The Student Non-Discrimination Act also preserves our First Amendment freedoms of expression and religion. The bill is narrowly tailored to comply with the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents. It includes provisions that explicitly exempt parochial schools, and to make clear that religious groups in public schools continue to be protected by the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.

I urge all Senators to come together to support this important bill to ensure that all of our students are given the opportunity to succeed, free from harassment or discrimination.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Franken in sponsoring the Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2010, SNDA, an important step in our march toward a more inclusive Nation. This bill continues the civil rights work we began earlier this Congress when I offered the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill last year. The Student Non-Discrimination Act will ensure that under Federal law, all public school children are protected equally from discrimination. Children deserve a safe environment where they can learn the skills and knowledge necessary to be good citizens.

More than 55 years ago, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to justice and equal rights for all Americans by ending racial segregation in our public schools. A unanimous Court recognized that ``it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''

Congress continued on the path of progress by passing laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These laws protected students in federally- funded public schools from discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, sex, and disability. President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, ``Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers . . . contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in . . . discrimination.''

Tragically, for far too long, U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone to public school systems that tolerate or perpetuate discrimination, harassment, and even violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``now is the time to make justice a reality'' for all of our children--now is the time for Congress to extend existing Federal protections against discrimination to all public school students.

The legislation we introduce today does just that by prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in public, non-religious, federally- funded schools.

Vermont has recognized the importance of creating a safe school environment for our children. In 1993, the State legislature enacted a law to protect school children from harassment based on sexual orientation, and in 2007, the law was strengthened to protect against harassment based on gender identity. Nine other States and the District of Columbia protect school children from discrimination based on

gender identity and sexual orientation. This legislation makes clear that it would not preempt state laws such as those in Vermont, which provide additional protections and remedies.

The Student Non-Discrimination Act also preserves our First Amendment freedoms of expression and religion. The bill is narrowly tailored to comply with the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents. It includes provisions that explicitly exempt parochial schools, and to make clear that religious groups in public schools continue to be protected by the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.

I urge all Senators to come together to support this important bill to ensure that all of our students are given the opportunity to succeed, free from harassment or discrimination.

Mr. President, last week, I filed two important amendments to the pending Wall Street reform legislation to protect the identity of whistleblowers and to ensure transparency and accountability to the American public when the government investigates allegations of financial fraud. My amendments on whistleblower confidentiality strike a careful balance between the need to protect the identity of whistleblowers and the public interest in transparency. I hope the Senate will work to include these amendments in the bill.

The recent economic crisis has revealed how corporate greed must be reigned in on Wall Street. While average Americans were suffering, many Wall Street investment banks and insurance companies went to great lengths to hide their shaky finances from stockholder and government regulators. Whistleblowers serve an important role in exposing financial fraud. This underscores the importance of ensuring that whistleblowers are provided the necessary protections to come forward with allegations of financial fraud and ensuring that the American public has access to critical information about corporate financial wrongdoing.

My amendments addresses two key problems with the whistleblower provisions in the bill: First, the bill would prevent whistleblowers from obtaining information that they themselves have provided to government regulators under any circumstances. Second, the bill creates an unnecessary exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, that would, in some cases, shield critical information about financial fraud from the public indefinitely.

To strengthen the protections for whistleblowers, my amendments strike the well-intended, but overbroad confidentiality provisions in sections 748(h) and 922(h) of the bill, and replace those provisions with new language that both protects the confidentiality of whistleblower identity information and ensures the public's right to know. Specifically, the amendments require that government regulators may not disclose whistleblower identity information without the whistleblower's consent. My amendments also require that the government notify the whistleblower if information about the whistleblower's identity will be shared with other government agencies, or foreign authorities assisting with an investigation.

To ensure the public's right to know, my amendments remove language from the bill that, in some cases, would change law and could indefinitely shield critical information about financial fraud from the public. My amendments do not change existing disclosure requirements and exemptions under FOIA, but, rather, they require that government regulators treat information that reveals the identity of whistleblowers as confidential. Other information that a whistleblower provides to the government would remain subject to the existing disclosure requirements and exemptions under FOIA and other Federal laws.

My amendments are modeled after whistleblower protection provisions that Congress has previously and overwhelmingly enacted in other recent legislation. The amendments also complement the whistleblower protections already included in the bill.

My amendments are supported by a broad coalition of open government organizations, including--the Project on Government Oversight, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Progressive States Network, Common Cause, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Action, OMB Watch, National Fair Housing Alliance, and Americans for Financial Reform. I thank each of these organizations for their support of the amendments and for their work on behalf of whistleblowers and the public's right to know.

As the Senate concludes debate on critical reforms to head off the Wall Street fraud and abuses, we must work to ensure accountability and openness in how the government responds to this crisis. The improvements in my amendments will ensure that whistleblowers have the protection that they deserve and that financial firms will be held accountable. I urge all Senators to support these open government amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a support letter signed by several open government organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, earlier today I announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its confirmation hearing on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court beginning June 28.

I have reached out to Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, to discuss the scheduling of this hearing, and we were finally able to meet yesterday. We worked cooperatively to send a bipartisan questionnaire to the nominee last week. We joined together to send a letter yesterday to the Clinton Library asking for files from Solicitor General Kagan's work in the White House during the Clinton administration. I will continue to consult with Senator Sessions to ensure that we hold a fair hearing.

This is a reasonable schedule that is in line with past practice. The hearing on the nomination of Justice Kennedy was held just 33 days after his designation. The hearing on the nomination of Justice Ginsburg was held 36 days after her nomination. And the hearing on the nomination of Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice was held 42 days after his nomination. When John Roberts was first nominated to succeed Justice O'Connor, I agreed with the Republican Chairman to proceed 49 days after his designation even though he had not yet even received his answer to the committee's questionnaire. After Hurricane Katrina, the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the withdrawal of that initial nomination and his nomination, instead, to be Chief Justice, the committee proceeded just days after his nomination and only 55 days from his earlier designation. Of course, last year we proceeded with the hearing on the nomination of Justice Sotomayor 48 days after she was designated. Senate Republicans said that hearing was fair and was conducted fairly. This year, I am scheduling the hearing to start 49 days after Elena Kagan's nomination.

There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this year's nomination. Justice Stevens announced on April 9 that he would be leaving the Court. He wrote that he would resign effective the day after the Supreme

Court concludes its summer session at the end of June. He noted that ``it would be in the best interests of the Court to have [his] successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court's next Term,'' and I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Stevens. That is in the best interests of the Court and the country.

Since Justice Stevens' announcement in early April, there has been a good deal of work done in preparation. The President announced his choice a month later, on May 10. During that month, much was written and said about the eventual nominee who was identified from the outset as a leading candidate for nomination. When the President made it official, Senate Republicans were quick to react. Indeed, one Senate Republican announced on the very day that the President announced his selection that the Senator opposed Solicitor General Kagan's nomination and would be voting against confirmation. Extreme rightwing interest groups and commentators have been savaging her since before the nomination was announced, and that has not subsided. The misstatements and harsh characterizations make proceeding sooner rather than later all the more important. Solicitor General Kagan deserves the earliest opportunity to respond to these attacks and to set the record straight. The American people deserve a process that is fair and thorough but not needlessly prolonged. In selecting this hearing date, I am trying to be fair to all concerned.

I also want to conclude the process without unnecessary delay so that Solicitor General Kagan might participate fully in the deliberations of the Supreme Court in selecting cases and preparing for its new term. I want to complete Senate consideration, as Justice Stevens suggested, so that the new Justice is confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Supreme Court's next term, so that she may organize her chambers, select her clerks, and fully participate in the work of the Court.

This schedule is also in keeping with the time line Senator McConnell recommended in 2005, when President Bush made his first nomination to the Supreme Court and Senator McConnell, then the Republican whip and now the Senate Republican leader, said that the Senate should consider and confirm the President's Supreme Court nomination within 60 to 70 days. We worked hard to achieve that. The final Senate vote on Chief Justice Roberts' nomination was 72 days after he was designated. Justice Sotomayor was likewise confirmed 72 days after she was named. Seventy-two days after the nomination of Elena Kagan will be July 21.

Unlike the late July nomination of John Roberts, this nomination by President Obama was announced on May 10. Unlike the resignation of Justice O'Connor, which was not announced until July, the retirement of Justice Stevens was made official on April 9. So in this instance the vacancy arose almost 3 months earlier than in 2005. After bipartisan consultation, President Obama made his nomination more than 2 months earlier than President Bush did in 2005.

One of the Republican criticisms of this nomination is that Solicitor General Kagan has not been a judge and does not have years of opinions to be considered. That should make Senators' preparation for the hearing less labor intensive than that for Justice Sotomayor. In addition, we thoroughly reviewed and considered her record just last year when the Senate, by a bipartisan majority vote, confirmed her nomination to serve as the Solicitor General of the United States, often called the ``Tenth Justice.''

To delay the confirmation hearing until July, as some have suggested, would mean extending the preparation time from 49 to 63 days. But Republicans complain that there is less to review, nothing like the thousands of opinions they complained about last year. Accordingly, we could actually proceed more quickly to the hearing. This last weekend, Republican Senators said that Solicitor General Kagan's answers at the hearing were going to be the key. If that is true and they will approach the hearing with open minds and listen to her answers to their questions, we should not needlessly delay getting to those questions and answers.

The hearing is the opportunity for all Senators on the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to ask questions, raise concerns, and evaluate the nomination. It seems to me that Republican Senators are ready to ask questions now. At last week's consideration of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit, much of the discussion from Republican Senators seemed, instead, to be about the Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court. The Republican Senators say that they want to ask her about her actions as the dean of Harvard Law School and about her judicial philosophy. It does not take 2 months to prepare to ask those questions. They have already raised them. They will surely be prepared to ask them by late June. This is a schedule that I think is both fair and adequate--fair to the nominee and adequate for us to prepare for the hearing and Senate consideration. There is no reason to indulge in needless and unreasonable delay.

We already have received Solicitor General Kagan's response to the committee's questionnaire. Senator Sessions and I have sent a letter to the National Archives requesting documents related to Elena Kagan's service in the Clinton administration and there should be no cause for concerns that we will have these records before the committee in light of the White House Counsel's request over the weekend for the release of thousands of pages of records from that time. We will be prepared to proceed to a hearing on June 28, almost 6 weeks from today.

The purpose of the hearing is to allow Senators to ask questions and raise their concerns. It is also the time the American people can see the nominee, consider her thoughtfulness, her temperament, and evaluate her character. I am disappointed that some Republican Senators have already declared that they will vote no on Solicitor General Kagan's nomination and have made that announcement before giving the nominee a fair chance to be heard. It is incumbent on us to allow the nominee an opportunity to be considered fairly and allow her to respond to false criticism of her record and her character. Those who are critical and have doubts should support the promptest possibly hearing. That is where questions can be asked and answered. That is why we hold hearings.

President Obama handled the selection process with the care that the American people expect and deserve and met with Senators from both sides of the aisle. I suggested that he nominate someone outside the judicial monastery, whose experiences were not limited to those in the rarified air of the Federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court's decisions have a fundamental impact on Americans' everyday lives. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to understand how just one vote can determine the Court's decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. One need look no further than the Citizens United decision to know that the decisions of the Supreme Court can drown out the voices of individual Americans in favor of wealthy corporate interests. I believe that Solicitor General Kagan understands that our courthouse doors must remain open to hard- working Americans.

President Obama is to be commended for having consulted with Senators from both sides of the aisle. Now the Senate must fulfill its responsibility. The nominee has returned the Judiciary Committee questionnaire and will be completing her meetings with Senators on the Judiciary Committee very soon. I hope that all Senators now will work with me to move forward to consider this nomination in a fair and timely manner.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, earlier today I, along with 67 other Senators, sent a letter to President Obama on an issue that has concerned the Congress since the late 1980s.

Our letter, signed by more than two-thirds of the Senate, commends the President for conducting a comprehensive review of the U.S. Government's policy on antipersonnel mines. That review has been underway for some time, and I expect it will be completed later this summer.

It has involved consultations with the Department of Defense including active and retired U.S. military officers, the Department of State including current and former U.S. diplomats, key military allies, and humanitarian and arms control organizations. The review has examined the historical record, asked rigorous questions, and solicited a wide range of views.

I want to thank the Senators who joined me and Senator Voinovich in signing this letter, which states our belief that through a thorough, deliberative review the administration can identify any obstacles to joining the Ottawa Treaty banning the production, use, transfer and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines, and develop a plan to overcome them as soon as possible.

The treaty has been signed by 158 countries, including our NATO allies whose troops are fighting with our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by every other country in this hemisphere except Cuba.

This issue has a long history, and I do not have time to recount it in detail today. But suffice it to say that 13 years ago the United States missed an opportunity to play a leadership role in the international effort to ban antipersonnel mines, which culminated in the treaty. Although our country declined to join the treaty then, as early as 1994 President Clinton announced to the United Nations General Assembly his support for ridding the world of antipersonnel mines, and a plan to develop alternatives to these weapons with the intent of joining the treaty by 2006.

That date came and went, alternatives were developed, and U.S. troops have fought in two wars without, to the best of our knowledge, using these weapons. In the meantime, most of our closest allies have renounced antipersonnel mines, and their militaries long ago made the necessary doctrinal and technological adjustments to meet their force protection needs in accordance with the requirements of the treaty.

Antipersonnel landmines, which are triggered by the victim, have no place in the arsenal of a modern military. They function like some of the IEDs used by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq that have caused so many casualties of innocent people, as well as U.S. and coalition forces. Landmines are inherently indiscriminate, and no matter how sophisticated the technology they do not distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. They can be dropped by aircraft or disbursed by artillery by the thousands over wide areas. In today's fast moving battlefield where mobility is a priority, they can pose as much of a danger to our own forces as to the enemy.

Thirteen years ago the Pentagon argued that we should continue to stockpile antipersonnel mines. They said these weapons might be necessary in Korea or in a mechanized war against enemy armor.

But ownership and control of the mines in the Korean DMZ have been transferred to South Korea, and the United States has renounced the use of these types of mines, including in Korea. While there is the possibility that one day we may find ourselves in a conventional war against a major world power, antipersonnel landmines would have little if any utility or relevance in such a war. Rather than our own troops needing these weapons, if our adversary were so lacking in more effective weapons as to use them, our troops would not need antipersonnel mines they would need effective countermine technology.

There have been other arguments made, none of which are persuasive. For example:

Some have asked, after landmines what is the next weapon the Pentagon will be asked to give up? Isn't this a slippery slope for those seeking to ban other types of weapons? This hypothetical question has nothing to do with antipersonnel landmines, which are in a unique category of weapons that are designed to be triggered by the victim.

They are not like bullets or bombs that are aimed or targeted by a soldier. They are inherently indiscriminate, activated by whoever comes into contact with them, whether an enemy soldier, a refugee woman searching for firewood, or a child. Renouncing landmines should have no bearing on U.S. policy toward other weapons.

I have heard it asked how we can ensure that our troops can operate in coalitions with countries that are not parties to the treaty, for example South Korea. The answer is the same way as the NATO countries that have signed the treaty whose troops are fighting in coalition with our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why join the treaty when we are in de facto compliance already? What would we gain at this point? First, this question implicitly acknowledges that the United States does not require antipersonnel landmines. We have not used them since 1991, we have not exported them since 1992, we have not produced them since 1997 and the Pentagon has no plan to do so in the future.

It is important to recognize that the United States is not causing the mine problem today, although mines we exported to dozens of countries, or that are left over from past wars involving U.S. forces especially in Southeast Asia, continue to kill and injure civilians.

But most importantly, it would be a mistake to underestimate or devalue the positive reaction, practical effects and depth of goodwill toward the United States and our military that would result from joining the treaty. Other countries know the United States, the world's most powerful nation, needs to be part of multilateral agreements if those agreements are to achieve their goals. And they know the United States needs to be part of the solution to the landmine problem,

which means more than conforming our policy to the treaty and it means more than joining the treaty. It means actively using our influence to persuade other counties to join. Countries like India and Pakistan, China and Russia, Israel and Egypt today make the excuse that the United States has not joined, so why should they?

One particularly farfetched notion is that giving up landmines while Russia, China and other potential adversaries keep theirs is at odds with our usual arms control strategy, which seeks to use disarmament agreements as a means of enhancing U.S. security. This makes sense in the context of long-range missiles and nuclear bombs, but antipersonnel landmines? We have not used these weapons for 19 years, and no one can credibly argue that they are necessary to protect the national security of the United States or that our security is threatened by China's and Russia's antipersonnel landmines which are deployed along their common border.

Today, the United States is the largest contributor to humanitarian demining, a fact I am proud of, and I have been asked if by joining the treaty we would feel less obligated to support it. This question is nonsensical to me. Speaking as the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds these programs, whether or not we are a party to the treaty has nothing to do with our interest and responsibility in helping get rid of the millions of mines and other unexploded ordnance that litter and plague dozens of countries, including allies like Jordan, Afghanistan and Vietnam whose citizens continue to lose their lives and limbs from these hidden killers. Some of those mines and bombs were manufactured here and left behind by U.S. forces decades ago.

Some might ask why bother developing a plan to join the treaty, since the fact that 68 Senators signed a letter supporting it does not guarantee that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to ratify it. It is true that no one can guarantee what the U.S. Senate will do about treaties or anything else. But that is hardly a reason not to join. The fact that more than two-thirds of the Senate today supports such a policy, including 10 Republicans and 2 Independents, should certainly give momentum to doing so, and convey to the President that the treaty would find wide acceptance in the Senate.

Finally, I have heard it suggested that U.S. troops might need antipersonnel mines in Afghanistan. I find it hard to imagine that the United States, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of mines left over from past wars in Afghanistan that have killed and injured more civilians than in any other country, at a time when our military leaders are trying to minimize civilian casualties which have caused so many Afghans to turn against us, would use antipersonnel landmines in Afghanistan--a party to the treaty--and risk the public outcry that would result.

We could debate whether the United States should have joined the Ottawa Convention 13 years ago, but there is no point in that. The question today is why not now? Many years have passed and we have seen the benefits of the treaty. The number of antipersonnel mines produced and exported has plummeted, as has the number of victims.

But landmines remain a deadly legacy in many countries, and the world needs the leadership of the United States to help universalize the treaty and put an end to the time when antipersonnel landmines were an acceptable weapon. It will not happen overnight, but it will never happen without U.S. support. As President Obama said in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, ``I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.'' We are fortunate to have a President, and top leaders at the Pentagon and commanders on the battlefield, who recognize that civilians far too often bear the brunt of war's misery, and who believe that we can and must do more to prevent it. There is no better way to begin implementing that important principle, and working toward that goal, than by joining the Ottawa Treaty.

The United States is by far the world's strongest military power. We also have the moral authority that no other country has and the obligation to use that authority in ways that set an example for the rest of the world. It was 16 years ago that President Clinton embraced the goal of ridding the world of these indiscriminate weapons. The Obama administration's review of U.S. policy can finally turn that goal into reality.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter sent to President Obama be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on May 18, 2010, at 11 a.m., in room SR-325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The New START Treaty.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``ESEA Reauthorization: Supporting Student Health, Physical Education, and Well-Being'' on Tuesday, May 18, 2010. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 18, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drug Enforcement and the Rule of Law: Mexico and Colombia.''

Mr. President, I thank all Senators for joining me in support of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. Passage of this legislation demonstrates the Senate's strong bipartisan support of all the men and women who serve in law enforcement roles in the United States. I thank the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and Senator Conrad for joining me as cosponsors of this legislation.

In March, for the third time since 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported legislation making needed improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to obtain certification to carry firearms across State lines. I am very pleased the Senate has at last given its approval to these important improvements to the original law.

In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. I worked with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and 68 other Senators to show our strong support for the Nation's law enforcement community. Since enactment, however, many retired officers have experienced substantial difficulty in gaining the benefits the law was intended to confer. I listened carefully to the feedback and advice from those in the law enforcement community to make the existing law stronger and more workable in a responsible and measured way. I especially thank the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations for their strong support.

The amendments we pass today will make the original law's operation more efficient while maintaining the rigorous standards that apply to those who seek its benefits. It will ensure that law enforcement officers who have served honorably and who are now retired will have flexibility in achieving the law's benefits and privileges which Congress determined they deserve.

It is especially appropriate that we pass this legislation this week at a time when tens of thousands of law enforcement officers are in the Nation's Capital to honor and remember their fellow officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. As I do each year, and in recognition of the ceremonies in Washington, I introduced a resolution to officially recognize May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. The Senate unanimously adopted that resolution. All of the men and women who serve and who are in Washington to remember and celebrate their fallen fellow officers should know that the Senate recognizes the extraordinary work they do on behalf of all Americans.

I thank all Senators who supported this measure and express my deep appreciation for the sacrifices and service of all of the men and women who give so much in the service of their fellow citizens.

Mr. President, the Senate is engaging in a vigorous debate over how best to bring corporate accountability to Wall Street. The Senate's consideration of this legislation is

a significant step toward accomplishing that goal, and will ultimately ensure that we do not fall victim to those same pitfalls and corporate abuses that led to the recent financial disaster.

As we bring accountability through the Wall Street Reform bill, we must preserve the role of the antitrust laws to promote competition and transparency in the industry. Our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers, and we must ensure they apply fully to Wall Street. There is simply no reason to risk exempting any industry from laws that prohibit price fixing and anticompetitive behavior.

In other sectors, we have seen the problems that result from a lack of adequate antitrust oversight. The insurance industry, which enjoys a statutory exemption from the antitrust laws, is characterized by high levels of market concentration throughout the country. Millions of Americans suffer the consequences through unaffordably high health care costs, which may not reflect the price that would be set through true competition. For the past three Congresses, I have worked to repeal this six-decade-old exemption from the Federal antitrust laws. There is no justification for it, and I have urged the Senate to take up quickly and pass legislation that passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

Statutory antitrust exemptions are rare because, as a general rule, when the antitrust laws are supplanted, competition, and therefore consumers, are harmed. Unfortunately, while I have been working in Congress to repeal unwarranted, special interest exemptions, an activist Supreme Court has been reading new exemptions into statutes where they do not exist. In Credit Suisse v. Billing, the Supreme Court created antitrust loopholes in securities law by holding that Congress implicitly exempted the antitrust laws. This Court-made exemption took away an important tool consumers had to hold Wall Street accountable for anticompetitive behavior. It is hard enough to bring back competition by repealing explicit exemptions, but now we must be attentive to those loopholes Congress never intended, as well.

In the wake of the Credit Suisse decision, we need to be vigilant when we enact comprehensive legislation such as Wall Street reform, to ensure there is no ambiguity that could prevent the antitrust laws from applying. When courts will read any silence on the part of Congress to imply an antitrust exemption, we need to be especially careful in how we craft our laws. Hard-working Americans demand this from their lawmakers.

To ensure there is no doubt about the role of the antitrust laws in this Wall Street reform bill, I am urging the Senate to include several antitrust protections in the Wall Street reform bill that the Senate is considering. First, the bill should include a comprehensive antitrust savings clause. Second, the bill should maintain Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review for those large financial acquisitions that are now subject to comprehensive Federal Reserve approval. Third, we should make explicit that the antitrust laws apply to those ``bridge'' acquisitions of failed firms that will be subject to an expedited emergency review. Finally, we need to preserve adequate competition safeguards in the derivatives exchange market.

These provisions to protect competition and consumers should be included in the final version of the Wall Street reform legislation that I hope the Senate will soon pass. Collectively, these provisions will ensure that antitrust authorities have a vital role in Wall Street oversight for years to come. For too long, large corporate interests have harmed the financial well-being of hardworking Americans. These financial institutions must be regulated, and including these antitrust provisions will ensure courts will not misread the intent of Congress and infer that the activity of Wall Street is exempted from the laws of competition.

Today, I also renew my call for the Senate to take up and pass my amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting that amendment.

Mr. Presdient, this week, the President nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I trust that her nomination will be treated better than President Obama's other judicial nominations, including these. President Obama nominated Jon DeGuilio to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in Indiana last year. He was unanimously reported by the bipartisan membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee in early March. His nomination has been held hostage for 2 months. President Obama nominated Judge Timothy Black last January, and he was reported unanimously in early February. His nomination has been held hostage for 3 months for no good purpose and with no explanation. Republican objection to their consideration has stalled both these nominations. Now that they are finally receiving votes, I suspect they will be confirmed unanimously, as have so many of President Obama's nominations. So why the delay? Why the weeks and weeks, and months and months, of obstruction? This obstruction is of nominees that Senate Republicans support. This is wrong. I have called for it to end, but the Republican Senate leadership persists in this practice.

By this date in President Bush's first term, 56 of President Bush's judicial nominations had been confirmed. Now that President Obama is in the White House, Republicans have allowed votes on only 23 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees.

The two nominations we consider today, that of Timothy S. Black to the Southern District of Ohio and Jon E. DeGuilio to the Northern District of Indiana, should have been considered and confirmed months ago. Both nominations have the support of Democratic and Republican home State senators. Both received positive ratings from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary. Both were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee months ago by voice vote, without any dissent--Judge Black on February 11 and Mr. DeGuilio on March 4.

As of today, there are 24 of President Obama's judicial nominations favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee stalled on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The Senate has confirmed only 23, even though these nominations were reported as far back as November. Even after the Senate acts today, there will be 22 judicial nominees still pending, and 16 of those

nominations were reported without a single negative vote. These should be easy for the Senate to consider in a timely manner and confirm. Yet Republicans continue to stall.

The majority leader has had to file cloture petitions to cut off the Republican stalling by filibuster on President Obama's nominees 22 times. Four times he has had to file cloture to proceed with judicial nominees, only to eventually see those nominees confirmed, two which were confirmed unanimously. This stalling and obstruction is wrong.

We should be doing the business of the American people, like reining in the abuses on Wall Street, rather than having to waste weeks and months considering nominations that should be easily confirmed. Several Senators have gone to the floor in recent weeks and have been outspoken about these delays and secret holds on judicial nominations, as well as scores of other Presidential nominations on which the Republican minority refuses to act. Regrettably, Republicans have objected to live requests for action on these nominations. They have also refused to identify who is objecting and the reasons for the objections, in accordance with the Senate rules.

The action of the Republican minority to place politics ahead of constitutional duty by refusing to adhere to the Senate's tradition of quickly considering noncontroversial nominees reminds me of the 1996 session when the Republican majority considered only 17 of President Clinton's judicial nominations. That was a low point I thought would not be repeated. Their failing to fill judicial vacancies led to rebuke by Chief Justice Rehnquist. But they are repeating this unfortunate history today, again allowing vacancies to skyrocket to over a 100, more than 40 of which have been declared ``judicial emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominations to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, the Senate is far behind the pace we set during the Bush administration. As I noted earlier, by this date in George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 56 Federal circuit and district court judges. In the second half of 2001 and through 2002, the Senate with a Democratic majority confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given Republican delay and obstruction, this Senate may not achieve half of that. Last year the Senate was allowed to confirm only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges all year. That was the lowest total in more than 50 years. So far this year, despite two dozen nominations on the Executive Calendar, we have confirmed only 11 more.

The Republican pattern of obstructionism we have seen since President Obama took office has led to this unprecedented backlog in nominations on the Senate calendar awaiting final consideration. We should end the backlog by restoring the Senate's tradition of moving promptly to consider noncontroversial nominees with up-or-down votes in a matter of days, not weeks and certainly not months. For those nominees Republicans wish to debate, they should come to time agreement to have those debates and votes. It is past time to end the destructive delaying tactics of stalling nominees for no good purpose.

The confirmation of the two nominations we consider today is long overdue.

Judge Black has served the Southern District of Ohio for 6 years as a Federal magistrate judge. Before that, he spent a decade as a municipal court judge, and he also had a long career as a civil litigator. His nomination has the support of both of his home State senators, Senator George Voinovich and Senator Sherrod Brown, one a Republican and one a Democrat.

Mr. DeGuilio served the Northern District of Indiana for 6 years as its U.S. attorney. In addition, he has more than a decade of experience as a lawyer in private practice, and he also worked as a local prosecutor. He has the support of both of his home State senators, Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Evan Bayh, one a Republican and one a Democrat.

I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today. I urge the Republican leadership to restore the Senate's tradition practice and agree to prompt consideration of the additional 22 judicial nominees they continue to stall.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will unanimously agree to a resolution to honor the service of our Nation's law enforcement officers. With this action we demonstrate the Senate's strong support as we observe and celebrate National Police Week. I thank Senator Sessions, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for joining me as the lead cosponsor of this resolution, and Senators Durbin, Specter, Kohl, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Grassley, Feingold, Schumer, Hatch and Boxer for lending their support as well.

This week we will reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by the men and women of our police forces. As thousands of law enforcement officers arrive in Washington this week to pay tribute to those whose lives were lost in the line of duty, I hope they all know that the Senate stands with them and honors their service and their sacrifice. We welcome these men and women and their families and friends to the Nation's Capital.

This year the names of two brave Vermonters who gave their lives in the line of duty will be added to the Memorial: John Henry Collette of the Addison County Sheriffs Office, died July 17, 1932, and Robert Daniel Rossier of the Vermont Highway Patrol, died September 9, 1935. The inscription of their names on the National Law Enforcement Memorial ensures that their service and sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Once again, I am proud that the Senate has unanimously approved this resolution and formally recognized National Police Week and National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. President, Kevin Pearce has been recognized as one of the best athletes that Vermont has produced. Like all Vermonters, Marcelle and I hold him in our prayers and thoughts after a devastating snowboarding accident while preparing for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

We have heard reports from his parents, Simon and Pia, about his recovery and like all Vermonters, and so many other Americans, we are so thankful he is back home and progressing every day in his recovery.

I watched Kevin's interview with Tom Brokaw on ``The Today Show'' and he discussed how well he was doing with Tom. I also wanted my fellow Senators to see the article about him in The New York Times and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that article at the completion of my remarks. I can only image how much Kevin enjoys being home with his parents and his brothers and how much we all appreciate his tremendous courage and abilities.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA, of 2010. This legislation modernizes and extends important statutory copyright licenses that allow cable and satellite companies to retransmit the content transmitted by television broadcasters. STELA also includes important Communications Act authorizations that allow for the retransmission of broadcast television signals by satellite and cable providers.

Ensuring that Americans have access to broadcast television content is important, and it is particularly relevant for consumers in rural areas who might not otherwise be able to receive these signals over- the-air. The legislation that the Senate is passing today will ensure that nobody will be left in the dark for the foreseeable future. Broadcast television plays a critical role in cities and towns across the country, and remains the primary way in which consumers are able to access local content such as news, weather, and sports.

Cable and satellite providers help to expand the footprint of broadcast stations by allowing them to reach viewers who are unable to receive signals over-the-air. Vermont is an example of how cable and satellite companies can provide service to consumers in rural areas who might not otherwise receive these signals.

Vermonters will see improved service when this legislation is enacted. Today, DirecTV is permitted to use the licenses to provide Windham and Bennington Counties with stations from the Burlington television market, but DISH Network is not. This legislation will permit DISH to provide their subscribers in southern Vermont with the same service. As soon as DISH Network uses this authority, virtually everyone in the State will be able to access the news and information that is truly important to Vermonters.

One other important way that STELA will preserve and improve existing service for consumers is by correcting a flaw in the statutory copyright license for the cable industry. An unintended result of current law is that the cable license requires the cable industry to pay copyright holders for signals that many of their subscribers do not actually receive. This is often referred to as the phantom signal problem. The effect of this anomaly in the law is that Comcast is required to pay copyright royalties based on their subscriber base across the northeast for the Canadian television content that is only provided to subscribers in Burlington, VT.

The bill corrects this flaw by giving the cable industry the flexibility to continue to provide signals that are tailored to local interests--signals that might otherwise have been pulled from cable line-ups. This will benefit industry and consumers. For instance, subscribers in Burlington will still be able to receive programming such as ``Hockey Night in Canada,'' which has been a tradition, without fear that Comcast will have to remove the channel or raise prices because it is being charged royalties based on subscribers in Boston.

In addition, the legislation will expand consumer access to their States' public television programming and low-power, community-oriented stations that will promote media diversity.

This is the third time the Senate will have passed substantially the same reauthorization language. The bill is the product of many hours of hard work and compromise among four committees in both Houses of Congress. No single member or committee chairman would have written it in this exact way, but the final language represents a fair compromise on important issues. For instance, I would have preferred the approach included in the Senate Judiciary Committee-approved bill for providing incentives to DISH Network to launch additional local markets, rather than lifting a court-ordered injunction. As a matter of policy, lifting a court-ordered injunction based on copyright infringement is something I generally do not support, but others insisted upon it and it is part of the compromise embodied in STELA.

Overall, this is a good bill that will preserve and improve the service that consumers across the country are accustomed to receiving. I hope the third time the Senate passes it will be the final time and that it will be considered promptly by the House and signed into law by the President.

Mr. CONRAD: This is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for S. 3333. This statement has been prepared pursuant to Section 4 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111- 139), and is being submitted for printing in the Congressional Record prior to passage of S. 3333 by the Senate.

Total Budgetary Effects of S. 3333 for the 5-year Statutory

PAYGO Scorecard: $0.

Total Budgetary Effects of S. 3333 for the 10-year Statutory

PAYGO Scorecard: $0.

Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this Act.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for letting me step forward ahead of him.

Madam President, I just want to note what a great pride it is in our family to have welcomed the visiting pastor today, Father Claude Pomerleau, who is also my wife Marcelle's brother. He, with the gracious concurrence of our Chaplain, Dr. Black, has opened the Senate on other occasions. But it is with a great deal of pride for both Marcelle and myself when he is here and has a chance to visit with us. Father Pomerleau is a dear friend of all our family and has been a guide and spiritual leader for our family for decades.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a short bio of him by the University of Portland, which even speaks about his clarinet playing, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, again, I thank our leaders, and I yield the floor.