Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senate Republicans have not allowed the Senate to act on a judicial nominee for almost 2 weeks. They have continued to stall the almost two dozen judicial nominees reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, dating back to last November. These 23 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate action include 17 who were reported without any negative votes. That is right--Senate Republicans continue to block Senate consideration and confirmation of nominees, including judicial nominees, who are not only going to be confirmed, but will likely be confirmed unanimously.

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

Senator Whitehouse, Senator McCaskill, and a number of other Senators have taken up the cause against these delays and secret holds. I thank them. They made live requests for action on the Senate floor to bring these matters into the light. Regrettably, those Republican Senators who had objected did not come forward to identify themselves or the reasons for their objections in accordance with Senate rules.

By this date in George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 52 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, only 20 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed by Senate Republicans. As I have noted there remain another two dozen additional judicial nominations stalled before final Senate action by Republican obstruction. It should not take 2 weeks to work out time agreements on three noncontroversial nominees. Nominees reported without a single negative vote in committee should not be stalled for months for no good reason.

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. In the second half of 2001 and through 2002 the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given Republican delay and obstruction this Senate may not achieve even 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. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100, more than 40 of which have been declared to be ``judicial emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

There is no explanation or excuse for what continues to be a practice by Senate Republicans of secret holds, and a Senate Republican leadership strategy of delay and obstruction of this President's nominations. That is wrong.

Throughout the past month, a number of Senators have come before the Senate to discuss this untenable situation and to ask for consent to proceed to scores of noncontroversial nominations. Republicans objected anonymously and without specifying any basis whatsoever.

These long delays unfortunately continue to be part of a pattern of Republican obstructionism that we have seen since President Obama took office. In a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations, Senate Republicans have refused month after month to join agreements to consider, debate and vote on nominations. This unprecedented practice has led to a backlog of nominations and a historically low number of judicial confirmations.

We should restore the Senate's tradition of moving promptly to consider noncontroversial nominees pending on the calendar, with up-or- down votes in a matter of days, not weeks, and certainly not months. For those nominees Republicans wish to debate, we should come to agreements for when to have those debates and votes. It should not take cloture in order for the Senate to get its work done and fulfill its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities.

I, again, urge the Senate Republican leadership to abandon its destructive delaying tactics and allow the Senate to act on the backlog of nearly two dozen judicial nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the last 6 months that they have stalled for no good purpose.

The three nominations we consider today should have been confirmed months ago, and I predict will each be confirmed overwhelmingly. Nancy Freudenthal has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the District of Wyoming. She has decades of experience as a public servant and a lawyer in private practice, and she currently serves as Wyoming's First Lady. Ms. Freudenthal has been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association's, ABA, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and, when confirmed, she will be that state's first female Federal judge. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported Ms. Freudenthal's nomination by voice vote without dissent on February 11--nearly 3 months ago--and her nomination has the support of both of Wyoming's Republican Senators, Senator Enzi and Senator Barrasso.

Judge D. Price Marshall has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Judiciary Committee also favorably reported his nomination by voice vote without dissent nearly 3 months ago, on February 11. Judge Marshall is currently a well-respected judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and he spent 15 years in private practice in Jonesboro, Arkansas. He also served as a law clerk to Seventh Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold. Judge Marshall has earned the highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified'' from the ABA Standing Committee, and he has the strong support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Pryor and Senator Lincoln.

Gloria Navarro has been nominated to serve as a Federal district court judge in Nevada. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote without dissent 2 months ago, on March 4. When the Senate finally confirms her, Ms. Navarro will become the only woman, and the only Hispanic, on the Nevada district court. Ms. Navarro, who has been rated ``qualified'' by the ABA's standing committee has gained valuable experience as a chief deputy district attorney in Clark County, NV, as a public defender and as a lawyer in private practice. Her nomination has the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Reid and Senator Ensign.

The three judicial nominees the Senate considers today have each been stalled by Republican objection for months. Each has the support of his or her home State Senators. In one case, that is two Republican Senators, in another that is two Democratic Senators, and in the third case that is one Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator. Each of these confirmations is long overdue. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

I urge the Republican leadership to agree to prompt consideration of the additional 20 judicial nominees they continue to stall.

Mr. President, I will support this nominee, but I should mention again that Senate Republicans have not allowed us to vote on a judicial nominee for almost 2 weeks.

By this date in George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 52 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we had only been allowed only 20 by the Senate Republicans. Counting the recent vote on Gloria M. Navarro this brings us just up to 21 confirmations.

There are nearly two dozen additional nominations stalled. It should not take 2 weeks to try to get through these secret holds. When we have people who are confirmed unanimously in the committee, then confirmed unanimously on the floor, it is unconscionable to hold them up week after week after week.

Would the Senator yield? The Senator is absolutely right. The Wyoming Senators did not hold up this nominee, but the Republican side did.

Mr. President, last week we began debate on Senator Dodd's Wall Street reform legislation. This is the culmination of a lengthy dialogue on how best to rein in Wall Street's excesses, and bring about a new era of corporate responsibility. I have pushed, and will continue to push, for reform that preserves the role of the antitrust laws as a tool to keep Wall Street honest and promote competition in the financial industry.

The recent economic crisis showed all of us that corporations do not act responsibly without adequate oversight. As we work to pass this landmark legislation, it is important to remember that, today, there is another industry that is not required to even play by the same rules of competition as everyone else. Benefiting from a six-decade-old special interest exemption, the health insurance industry is not subject to the Nation's antitrust laws. We can surely agree that health insurers should not be allowed to collude to fix prices and allocate markets.

Large corporate interests impact the daily lives of hardworking Americans and must be regulated. When any large corporation acts irresponsibly, whether it is a financial institution or a health insurance company, Americans pay the price. Today I filed the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act as an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill. This amendment, which is cosponsored by 21 other Senators, will repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption and ensure that they follow basic rules of fair competition. Competition ensures that consumers will pay lower prices and receive more choices.

Congress and the President have recently enacted comprehensive health insurance reform. It was clear from that debate, and from the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this issue in October, that the time to repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption is now. The language I am offering today passed overwhelmingly in the House, and it is supported by the President. It has received a cross-section of support from groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and the American Antitrust Institute. This repeal will ensure that basic rules of fair competition apply to those reforms included in the new health insurance reform laws.

Last fall, I introduced similar legislation to repeal the health insurers' antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired examined the merits of this repeal. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and this amendment is an important step towards ensuring that health insurers are subject to the laws of fair competition.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I read with interest, and disgust, the press reports about the comments of Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the United Nations on Monday, when he attempted to defend Iran's secret nuclear program and his government's continuing defiance of the Security Council.

I could not help but contrast his words with the efforts so many other countries have been making to prevent a nuclear weapon from ending up in the hands of a terrorist, or a nuclear arms race from taking off in the Middle East or South Asia.

In the past couple of weeks, the United States and Russia--two former enemies that once came to the brink of a nuclear war and since the 1980s have slashed their nuclear arsenals--agreed to make further reductions, and President Obama has said he wants to negotiate deeper cuts in furtherance of his long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

On Monday, the Pentagon disclosed publicly the number of weapons that remain in our arsenal, which would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

There are serious efforts being made to establish nuclear weapons- free zones in South America, Africa, and the Middle East.

And at the United Nations, even countries such as Russia and China, which have traditionally sided with Iran, have all but lost patience with what Secretary Clinton rightly called Iran's ``history of making confusing, contradictory and inaccurate statements.''

Nobody questions Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is, as United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said, more important today than ever. Terrorists like the Times Square bomber could cause death and destruction on a scale we have not seen since World War II. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists would have consequences for life as we know it that are almost unfathomable. And Iran has long been a state sponsor of terrorism.

President Ahmadinejad insists there is no proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, at the same time that he

refuses to permit the kind of international inspections that could establish whether Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. After Iran was offered the option of sending its enriched uranium to Russia and France for refinement into fuel rods for its research reactor, he responded by stalling with one contradictory counteroffer after another, all the while continuing to enrich increasing amounts of uranium to the point when Iran now is believed to have enough to build two nuclear bombs.

Mr. President, I want to commend Secretary of State Clinton for her measured, strong statements at the United Nations about Iran's duplicitous, dangerous flaunting of the international nuclear control regime. It does not appear that anything short of sweeping, multilateral sanctions has a chance of convincing Iran's leaders to change their reckless course.

It is tragic that Iran, a country of such talented, sophisticated people--many of whom risked their lives to protest a blatantly fraudulent election and who want peaceful relations with the United States--currently has a President who is squandering Iran's resources and reputation in pursuit of a narcissistic, foolhardy quest for a nuclear bomb that will only increase his country's isolation and intensify Iran's confrontational relationship with its neighbors and the international community. The potential consequences could not be more frightening for ordinary people everywhere, including the people of Iran, and the Security Council should delay no further in imposing the strongest possible sanctions.

Mr. President, I commend the Senate in promptly passing the Leahy-Cornyn Faster FOIA Act of 2010--an important measure to improve the administration of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. In the 5 years since, we have successfully worked together to reinvigorate FOIA through several other legislative initiatives. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senators Feingold, Whitehouse and Klobuchar, who have cosponsored this bill. We have also worked with Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions to make further improvements.

The Obama administration has also made significant progress in improving the FOIA process. In March, the administration announced that the number of overdue FOIA cases fell by 50 percent governmentwide during the past year. This is good news. But large FOIA backlogs remain a major roadblock to public access to information.

According to the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009, the Department had a backlog of almost 5,000 FOIA requests at the end of 2009. The Department of Homeland Security's report for the same period shows a backlog of 18,918 FOIA requests.

The Associated Press recently reported that more than 67,000 overdue FOIA requests remain outstanding across the Federal Government. Their report also indicates that that the government's use of FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public which often contributes to FOIA delays increased during fiscal year 2009.

Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply unacceptable. And that is why we introduced this bill.

The Commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The Commission will also study why Federal agencies are relying more and more on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public. In addition, the Commission will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The Commission will be made up of government and nongovernmental representatives with a broad range of experience related to handling FOIA requests.

I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. The Senate will unanimously pass this bipartisan legislation. I hope that the House of Representatives will promptly consider this bill so that Congress can send it to the President before the end of the year.

Mr. President, I am honored once again to submit this resolution to the Senate commemorating our Nation's law enforcement officers and National Peace Officers Memorial Day. The Senate's official recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week is a tradition I am

proud to carry out each year, and I look forward to the Senate taking up and passing this resolution.

In 2009, 116 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. We honor their memory. Though this is a decrease from 2008, it is no less tragic a loss to our Federal and State law enforcement community and to their families and friends. Each year we commemorate the bravery of so many in law enforcement, and our Nation's peace officers deserve our commitment to provide them with the tools they need to stay safe and to do their jobs as effectively as they can.

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

I also take this opportunity to recognize that the names of 324 fallen officers will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on May 13 during a candlelight vigil held in their honor. These are officers from the past and present whose memory will be preserved for all time at the memorial, ensuring that their bravery and sacrifice will not be forgotten. I especially want to recognize two brave Vermonters who gave their lives in the line of duty, and whose names will be added to the Memorial this year: John Henry Collette of the Addison County Sheriff's Office, died July 17, 1932, and Robert Daniel Rossier of the Vermont Highway Patrol, died September 9, 1935.

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

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senate for enacting the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, H.R. 3714, a bill to strengthen and protect press freedoms around the world. I am proud to cosponsor the Senate companion to this bill, S. 1739.

I congratulate and commend my good friend, Senator Dodd, for his leadership on this bill and for his longstanding commitment to freedom of the press. I have worked closely with Senator Dodd for many years on legislation to establish a Federal shield law for journalists, and I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee recently reported Federal shield legislation. I also commend Representative Adam Schiff for championing this important legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act will amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require the Secretary of State to include information about freedom of the press practices in other countries in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The bill will also require that this report identify countries in which there are violations of freedom of the press, such as physical attacks on journalists, imprisonment, and censorship by foreign governments.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that more journalists have been killed around the world in 2009 than in any other year since that organization first started tracking this data in 1981. This troubling report demonstrates that the press freedoms that we often take for granted at home are in danger of being snuffed out in many other parts of the world. I believe that this bill will help to reverse this trend and to signal to the world community that the United States is committed to ensuring freedom of the press at home and abroad.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to fellow Founding Father John Adams that ``[t]he light which has been shed on mankind by the art of printing has eminently changed the condition of the world . . . And while printing is preserved, it can no more recede than the sun return on his course.'' Although these words were written almost two centuries ago, the critical role of a free and vibrant press is no less significant today. Again, I congratulate the lead sponsors of this important legislation for their commitment to freedom of the press. I urge the President to promptly sign this important legislation into law.

Mr. President, on May 4, the Saint Michael's College community will celebrate the 80th birthday of a fellow Michaelman and longtime friend of many, Reverend Raymond Doherty. Father Ray, as he is known to many, graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1951, and began what has become a lifetime of service to the Saint Michael's community. A devoted member of the Society of Saint Edmund, whose members founded Saint Michael's over 100 years ago, Father Ray embodies the deep commitment to social justice that has become the hallmark of a Saint Michael's College education. It is among the many reasons I am proud to join Saint Michael's alumni everywhere in celebrating this milestone.

For the past seven decades, Father Ray has advised, counseled, and supported countless Saint Michael's students, faculty, alumni, and Vermonters. His contributions have not gone unnoticed. In 2005, a fellow classmate established the Reverend Raymond Doherty SSE '51 Scholarship to honor Father Ray's significant contributions as a college administrator, friend, and religious leader. Saint Michael's students continue to learn and grow from Father Ray's contributions to the Saint Michael's community. Countless students, and in many cases generations of families, are lucky to know him.

As a student at Saint Michael's in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Father Ray graced the George ``Doc'' Jacobs baseball program as a starting and relief pitcher for the college. Later in his career, Father Ray would serve as a key member of the college's 1987 and 1996 athletic tasks forces. Last year, the Saint Michael's community honored that legacy by inducting him in to the Saint Michael's College Athletic Hall of Fame.

Saint Michael's widely recognized reputation for encouraging its students and alumni to foster peace and justice has been bolstered by Father Ray's commitment to community service and helping those in need. His frequent involvement in Saint Michael's signature service organization, the Mobilization of Volunteer efforts, MOVE, has been an example to all.

Two years ago, in 2008, Father Ray and the Edmundite community celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination. As Father Ray marks another milestone this year, I join with countless of fellow Michaelmen in wishing him the happiest of birthdays. We all look forward to his continued support of the Saint Michael's mission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, ``Middlebury to Develop Online Language Venture,'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, yesterday the Senate was forced to devote the entire day to so-called ``debate'' on two nominations that Republican objections had stalled for months. The good news is, the majority leader's filing of cloture motions to end the filibusters on these nominations succeeded. The votes took place. Each was confirmed with more than 70 votes, a bipartisan majority of the Senate. The debate amounted to statements by Senators in support of the nominations. Let me emphasize that. The only people who spoke, spoke in support of the nominations. During the entire day, not a single Republican Senator came to the floor to oppose the nominations, nor did a single Senator come to the floor to explain why there have been months of delay that left a key office of the Justice Department without a head for the last year. None came to explain why their objections left a longstanding vacancy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Instead, there was silence. There is no explanation for what continues to be a practice by Senate Republicans of secret holds and a Senate Republican leadership strategy of delay and obstruction of President Obama's nominations. That is wrong.

Throughout the week, a number of Senators have come before the Senate to discuss this untenable situation. They have asked for consent to proceed to scores of nominations that are totally noncontroversial. Yet Republicans objected because, after all, these nominees had committed the horrible sin of being nominated by a Democratic President. It makes no sense. I am in my 36th year in the Senate. I have never seen anybody treat any President, Republican or Democratic, in this way.

Pursuant to our Senate rules which were enacted after bipartisan efforts, those Republican Senators who are objecting have an obligation to come forward and justify those objections. I am going to be interested to see which Senators are objecting to proceeding on 18 judicial nominees. Eighteen nominees who were reported unanimously-- every Democrat, every Republican in support of them from the Judiciary Committee--and then they are held by these secret holds. I will be interested in knowing what basis there is for not proceeding on those 18 nominees. In fact, I would like to know why we can't proceed to the 11 Justice Department nominees who were reported without objection-- U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and Directors of important institutes and bureaus within the Justice Department. Most of these people are involved with critical law enforcement matters. These stalled nominations extend back into last year, even though they had unanimous support from the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. Even though most of them are in key law enforcement positions, they have been stopped, they have been held up, they have been stalled. This is wrong, and it should end.

Today, the Senate has another opportunity to make progress by completing action on the long-stalled nomination of Judge Denny Chin of New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is the circuit of the distinguished Presiding Officer and of this Senator. The vacancy he has been nominated to fill, which has been delayed by some anonymous Republican objection, has been classified as a judicial emergency by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It is not unusual. There are 40 other judicial emergency vacancies and judges being held up. It is one of the four current vacancies in the Second Circuit's panel of 13 judges. All are judicial emergencies. Almost one-quarter of the court is being held vacant. That is wrong.

It reminds me of the years during the Clinton administration when similar Republican practices led to Chief Judge Winter, himself a Republican, having to declare the entire circuit an emergency in order to continue to operate with panels containing only a single Second Circuit judge. That is wrong. During that era, we had 61 pocket filibusters of a Democratic President's judges. That is wrong.

Yesterday, Republicans insisted on 3 hours of ``debate'' before a vote on Judge Vanaskie and another 3 hours of ``debate'' for a vote on Professor Schroeder, but none of them came down to debate. Then they were both confirmed by overwhelming margins. We should be thankful that today they have insisted on only 1 hour before this long overdue vote. I will be interested to see whether a single Republican Senator comes to speak in opposition of Judge Chin's nomination or to explain why they have delayed this vote for 19 weeks.

The Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to report Judge Chin's nomination last December--all Republicans and all Democrats. None of the Republican Senators serving on the committee opposed it--not Senators Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, or Senator Coburn. Not one. He is an outstanding district court judge. He has the strong support of both of his State's Senators and a number of conservative leaders. Yet his nomination has been stuck on the calendar since December. He has been waiting 133 days for the Senate to act. Contrast this with the practice Democrats followed during the first 2 years of the Bush administration when we proceeded to vote on his circuit court nominations, on average, within 7 days of their being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Now we wait 133 days and more.

This dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration on noncontroversial nominations has led to a backlog of nominations and a historically low rate of judicial confirmations, and it damages the integrity of our courts. Our Federal system of judges has been the envy of most other countries because we keep them out of politics. Here we are sinking them into politics.

In fact, by this date in President Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, only 19 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed by the Republicans. This is despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominations to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush did, so the Senate is way behind the pace we set during the Bush administration.

In the second half of 2001 and through 2002 the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given Republican delay and obstruction this Senate will not likely achieve half that. Last year the Senate was allowed to confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges all year. That was the lowest total in more than 50 years. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100.

Judge Chin is a well-respected jurist who is widely celebrated for one of his most newsworthy decisions in which he sentenced Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff to 150 years in prison. He previously served for 4 years as a Federal prosecutor, and he spent a decade as a lawyer in private practice. You would think they would be saying: Why don't we move forward with the man who sentenced Bernie Madoff? It is almost as if we are punishing him for going after Bernie Madoff.

In fact, Judge Chin's impressive track record garnered the respect of former judge and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who wrote to the

Judiciary Committee: ``I believe him to be an intelligent and highly qualified nominee, who brings to the job not only experience but also demonstrated good judgment and skill. He . . . [has] a temperament that has shown him to be both firm and fair.''

James Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General and the former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, echoed this praise. ``In a district with many fine trial judges, he was a star--smart, fair, honest, careful, firm, apolitical, and a brilliant writer. . . . [W]hile always in control of the proceedings, he never lost the sense of humility that allowed him to listen to an argument with an ear toward being convinced and to give all a fair hearing,'' wrote Mr. Comey.

Judge John S. Martin, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote to emphasize that Judge Chin ``is an exceptionally able lawyer'' and a ``decent and thoughtful individual . . . who has earned the respect of those who have appeared before him.''

When Judge Chin is confirmed today, he will become the only active Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court. He was also the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a U.S. district court judge outside the Ninth Circuit.

I cannot understand the stall of this nomination. It is time that we get to work. Let's move the people who should be moved forward. Let's get on with our job. After all, the American public pays us well to do this job. They pay us to vote yes or no. They don't pay us to vote maybe. With all of these stalls, we are saying we want to vote maybe. Come on, let's have the guts to vote yes or no.

Today I look forward to congratulating Judge Chin and his family on this historic achievement. I commend both Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their persistence in supporting this important nomination and bringing this matter to fruition. His confirmation is long overdue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to add me as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I just wish to make a unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I thank my dear friend, the senior Senator from Missouri.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 780, 781, 795, 796, 797, 798, 816, 817, 818, 819, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard, Foreign Service, and NOAA; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; any statements relating to the nominations be printed

in the Record; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I speak often about the excellent higher education opportunities that are available in Vermont. Today, I want to honor Middlebury College for a new business venture that builds upon its academic reputation in foreign languages.

A small, liberal arts school of 2400 students, located in Addison County, Middlebury is a campus that is rooted in Vermont's rich culture, while charting the way forward to the future. From using wood chips to heat and cool buildings across the campus, to local food initiatives, to recycling building materials, students, faculty and staff use creativity and build on a tradition of excellence in helping to take the college to the next level.

This week, Middlebury College was hailed as one of the Nation's top ``green colleges'' in a new ranking by the Princeton Review. And a recent article in the New York Times described the college's new and innovative business partnership to develop an online language program for precollege students. Already well known for its intensive summer language programs, Middlebury will be able to broaden its reach and impact by bringing a language program directly into the homes of American students wanting to learn new languages.

The Internet has emerged as a significant learning tool, and connecting students with language instruction on the Web is a wonderful academic idea as well as an innovative business initiative.

I know that Middlebury College will continue to be a leader in academic innovation, and I wish them the best in their new endeavor.

Mr. President, today our Nation marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. For four decades, Americans have joined together on April 22 to celebrate our environment and to commit ourselves to fostering a healthier world. What Senator Gaylord Nelson began as a grassroots response to widespread environmental degradation in the 1970s has grown to become the foundation of the modern environmental movement and an annual recognition of Earth Day. For 40 years, Americans have used this day to organize events and participate in activities to draw attention to environmental issues and to promote environmental awareness and reform. Today, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we can be proud of the many steps we have taken to clean up the environment. With the hard work and dedication of many, we have made progress. But there is more work to be done and we are facing many new threats.

Now for the first time since the passage of the landmark environmental laws of the 1970s, we are close to making significant strides to address environmental, climate, and energy-related issues. Bipartisan legislation is being developed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and significant steps have been taken already by this administration to ease the impact of human activities on the natural world, for our benefit, and for the benefit of generations to come. We do not have to choose between creating jobs and protecting the environment or between jobs and solving climate change. The economy of the 21st century will be built on infrastructure powered by clean energy, and, as Gaylord Nelson once wrote, ``all economic activity depends upon the . . . air, water, soil, forest, minerals, wetlands, rivers, lakes, oceans, wildlife habitat, and scenic beauty.'' These, he said, ``are the accumulated capital resources of a nation. Take them away and what you have left is a wasteland.''

Today, as the world pauses to consider the awe-inspiring power of our choices, let us reflect on what we stand to lose if we fail to act and what we stand to gain if we make the commitment to improve the air, water, and land upon which we depend. It is clear that Earth Day is not about the next government proclamation or regulation; this day is about the actions of individuals the amazing power of one person to accomplish change.

The threats to our planet are global; they are broad and overwhelming. But they are also very personal. The choices we make today will shape our world for generations to come. Though it may seem improbable to suggest that each person has the power to make a change, in saving our planet and improving our communities, it is certainly true.

It is estimated that by the year 2050, 40 years from now, the global population will be 9.4 billion people, adding more strain to our ecosystems. If personal responsibility for the Earth is truly as simple as conserving water, choosing public transportation or carpooling whenever possible, making your home more energy efficient, buying local sustainably produced food, recycling and reusing goods, there is little reason for any of us to deny our individual power to bring about change.

It is all too easy to imagine that the problems people currently face are a world away--across an ocean, on other continents. It is too easy to imagine problems such as a lack of clean water, vicious storms, and insufficient food supplies as not our own. I know that when it comes to the future of the Earth, the continent that seems so removed could just as easily be my backyard. On this 40th Earth Day, I am proud to call Vermont, the Green Mountain State, my home, and Vermont has been a leader in helping to show the way forward in protecting the Earth.

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, each of us can renew our commitment to our planet--our home. We can use our power as individuals to work together toward a cleaner environment and a healthier planet. As part of the legacy we leave for our children and our grandchildren, let them enjoy a society that is secure in its commitment to a healthy and environmentally sound future. On this 40th anniversary of Earth Day, while we remember the pioneering spirit of Gaylord Nelson, we must honor his legacy and continue turning his words into action.

Madam President, today the Senate will finally confirm Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. I say ``finally'' because he was nominated by President Obama nearly 11 months ago. Professor Schroeder was first nominated to this position on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last June. He was reported favorably last July, a year ago, without dissent from both Republican and Democrat members on the committee. But then he sat on the Executive Calendar for 5 months, blocked by mysterious holds from the Republican side. Then, as the last session drew to a close, Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session, so it had to be sent back to the White House. The President had to renominate him. The President did that, to his credit. His nomination was reconsidered, reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee by a rollcall vote, with a majority of the Republicans voting for him. That was nearly three months ago.

Professor Schroeder is a scholar and public servant who has served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department and has support across the political spectrum. The Judiciary Committee has received letters of support for Professor Schroeder's nomination from Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan; Ken Starr, former Solicitor General under former President George H.W. Bush; 11 former high-ranking officials at the Justice Department; and Dean David F. Levi of Duke Law School, where Professor Schroeder has taught for many years.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Madam President, Chris Schroeder is well known to many of us in the Senate. He has served in a number of positions, including chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee when the chairman was then- Senator Joe Biden. He spent years in private practice and as a professor, including for the last 10 years as director for the Program in Public Law at Duke University Law School. He has also served in a number of high-ranking positions at the Justice Department making him extraordinarily well prepared for the position to which he has been nominated. In fact, in my nearly 36 years here, it is hard to think of somebody more well qualified.

Look what he has done. He graduated from Princeton University, received his master of divinity from Yale Divinity School before earning his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley Boalt Hall in 1974. There is no question that he is well qualified to run the Office of Legal Policy.

For somebody who is going to be confirmed easily, it shouldn't be necessary for the majority leader to have to file cloture in order to end the Republican filibuster. The Senate should be able to at least have an up-or-down vote on Professor Schroeder's nomination. What has this place come to when we have filibusters on routine nominations such as this?

I remember, when I first came here, probably the biggest nomination we had before a heavily Democratic-controlled Senate was a nomination by a conservative Republican President, Gerald Ford, for the U.S. Supreme Court. President Ford nominated a well respected Republican from Chicago seen as a conservative; John Paul Stevens. We took that nomination from the Republican President 2\1/2\ weeks after that nomination arrived here. We all voted for John Paul Stevens to be confirmed for the Supreme Court, including myself. In fact, I am one of only three Senators still here who voted, with Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd being the other two.

What have we come to when we have a nominee who is as extraordinarily well qualified as Professor Schroeder, who is going to be confirmed, but he has to get past a Republican filibuster.

The 11 months it has taken us to consider this nomination is a far cry, incidentally, from the way the Democrats

treated President Bush's nomination to run the Office of Legal Policy. A Democratic majority confirmed President Bush's first nominee to head that division, Viet Dinh, by a vote of 96 to 1 only 1 month after he was nominated and only 1 week after his nomination was reported by the committee. The 3 nominees of that office who succeeded Mr. Dinh--Daniel Bryant, Rachel Brand, and Elisabeth Cook--were each confirmed by a voice vote in a far shorter time than Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending. None of these nominations were returned to the President without explanation. None of them required cloture to be filed before being considered.

What is going on when a Republican President is treated with fairness but a Democratic President, President Obama, is treated this way? It makes me think of what one of the leaders of the Republican Party said last year: I want this President to fail. If you have an objection to a nomination, vote against it, but none of us should want the President of the United States to fail because if the President fails, America fails and we all suffer, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have to get out of this mindset that if President Obama is for something, everybody has to find ways to block it.

I agree with Senator Franken's observation on the Senate floor earlier this week concerning the Schroeder nomination. He remarked that perhaps Republicans were blocking this nomination because Professor Schroeder has been nominated to lead the office that vets potential judicial nominees. Well, he is right, as is Senator Kaufman, who has spoken so eloquently on behalf of Professor Schroeder today.

To deflect criticism for Republican delays and obstruction of judicial nominations that have left 25 judicial nominations languishing on the Executive Calendar, Senate Republicans have tried to place the blame on the administration for sending too few nominees to the Senate. But these same Republicans have held up Professor Schroeder's nomination to lead the division of the Justice Department involved with reviewing and preparing judicial nominations for nearly a year. In other words, they stopped the person who is supposed to do the initial review on judicial nominations and then said: Oh, my goodness, President Obama is not sending up enough nominations. Come on. Come on. This is like a burglar saying: I should be excused for burglarizing this warehouse because you had such nice things in the warehouse to steal. It is your fault for having nice things to steal. How can you blame me for stealing them? What they are saying is: It is President Obama's fault for not moving through judges who have to be vetted by somebody we are blocking from vetting them.

I know the Department and the administration would be grateful to have Professor Schroeder help them prepare judicial nominations. He has shown that he has a deep understanding of the proper role of a judge tasked with interpreting the Constitution. As he emphasized in a response to a question from Senator Sessions:

Any interpretation of the Constitution must begin with the

document's text, history, structure, and purpose, as well as

judicial precedent . . . [A] fundamental qualification for

anyone being considered for a judicial appointment is that he

or she understand the Constitution has binding force that

must be applied faithfully in cases that come before any

court, independent of his or her own policy or preferences.

So, again, I thank Senator Kaufman. He is one of the most valued members of the Judiciary Committee and somebody I am going to miss sorely when he retires this year. I thank him for his dogged efforts in support of Professor Schroeder's nomination and for his assistance in managing the debate so well today.

I congratulate Professor Schroeder and his family on his confirmation. I have every confidence he will be an effective and devoted public servant.

I might note--I see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, who is presiding over the Senate today. Among the 25 judicial nominees stalled before a final Senate vote, there were two courts of appeal nominees for North Carolina. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer took a totally nonpartisan attitude toward recommending these judges and has worked extraordinarily hard, and I hope Judge Wynn and Judge Diaz will soon be allowed by Senate Republicans to be considered and voted on. They are supported by both the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Hagan, and the other distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr. So they are supported by a Democrat and a Republican.

Incidentally, Judge Wynn was reported out of the committee 18 to 1. Most of us would love to win elections by that kind of a margin. Judge Diaz was reported unanimously 3 months ago.

So let's stop this unprecedented kind of stalling and clear these 25 judicial nominees.

I see nobody else seeking recognition.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Christopher Schroeder, with the time until then equally divided and controlled as previously ordered; further, that any other provisions of the previous order with respect to the nomination remain in effect.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.