Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate just devoted more than 3 hours to the nomination of Chris Schroeder. I am glad that after many months the Senate has finally been allowed to act on that nomination and gratified that he received a bipartisan confirmation vote. After months of delay no Republican came to the Senate to speak in opposition to the nomination in the 3 hours that Republicans insisted be set aside to debate it. Senator Kaufman spoke in favor; I spoke in favor. Not a single opponent came to debate. That wasted more of the Senate's time when we should be considering other matters. We could be debating Wall Street reform, patent reform, or clearing the way for some of the other 100 Presidential nominations being stalled. We should have been.

With respect to the President's judicial nominees, we are well behind the pace I set as chairman when the Senate was considering President Bush's nominees during the second year of his Presidency. By this date in President Bush's second year, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had moved ahead to confirm 45 of his Federal circuit and district court judges. So far during President Obama's Presidency, Senate Republicans have only allowed votes on 18 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. During the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency we moved forward to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. Republican obstruction of President Obama's nominations makes it unlikely that the Senate will reach 50 such confirmations. Last year they allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be confirmed, the lowest number in more than 50 years.

Today, thanks to the perseverance of the majority leader and the Senators from Pennsylvania, we will consider and I hope confirm the 19th of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees, Judge Thomas Vanaskie. It has been more than 4 months since Judge Thomas Vanaskie's nomination to fill a judicial emergency on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support. His nomination has the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Specter and Senator Casey. He has more than 15 years of Federal judicial experience having served as a district court judge in Pennsylvania since 1994. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated him well qualified to serve as a circuit judge on third circuit. His nomination is not controversial. Yet, it has taken months to get consent from the other side for an up-or-down vote on Judge Vanaskie's nomination and that did not occur until the majority leader was forced to file cloture to end the stalling. Judge Vanaskie is one of the 25 judicial nominees still being stalled from final Senate consideration.

I appreciate the significant steps taken by the majority leader to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Their refusal to promptly consider even the most noncontroversial nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominees. The majority leader's decision to file cloture was an unfortunate but necessary step, resulting from Senate Republicans' refusal month after month to join agreements to consider, debate and vote on this nomination. Those practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of almost 100 nominations pending before the Senate, awaiting final action. These are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's Presidency.

The vote on the confirmation of Judge Vanaskie's nomination is the first vote on judicial nominations that the Senate will hold in 5 weeks. Despite the dozens of judicial nominations ready for Senate consideration, none has been allowed to move forward for over a month to fill longstanding vacancies in the Federal courts. Of the 25 pending judicial nominations, 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without any Republican Senator voting against. I have been urging the Senate Republican leadership for months to allow votes on these noncontroversial nominations and to enter into time agreements to debate the others. We need to clear the backlog of nominations and move forward.

I am pleased that the Senate tomorrow will consider another judicial nomination, that of Judge Denny Chin to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously, but it has also been stalled from Senate consideration for more than 4 months. Senate Republicans should lift their secret holds and also allow votes on the remaining 23 judicial nominations currently pending final action by the Senate. If we are allowed to act on the judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we will more than double the number of judicial nominations confirmed by the Senate this Congress, and bring the number of confirmations in line with the number we confirmed at this point during President Bush's first two years in office.

Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which have been designated ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, not only had the Senate confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges but there were just seven judicial nominations on the calendar. All seven were confirmed within 9 days. By the end of this month, which is nine days from now, we should clear the backlog that Republican obstruction has created and vote on the judicial nominations stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar.

By this date during President Bush's first term, circuit court nominations had waited less than a week, on average, before being voted on and confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago, in November of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days after being reported before being allowed to be considered and confirmed.

Judge Vanaskie was born and raised in Shamokin, PA. He is one of seven children raised by two working parents. He graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in 1975 and cum

laude from Dickinson School of Law in 1978, where he was an editor of the law review. After law school, he spent 2 years as a law clerk to the Honorable William J. Nealon, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining the Federal bench, Judge Vanaskie spent 14 years in private practice.

In 1994, Judge Vanaskie was confirmed by voice vote to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He served as the Chief Judge of the Middle District from 1999 to 2006, and has sat by designation with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on several occasions. He has also served as cochair of the Third Circuit Library Resources Task Force and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association. He is presently the chair of the Third Circuit Judicial Council's Information Technology Committee. His work in the area of technology in the courtroom has won him widespread admiration and appreciation.

I congratulate Judge Vanaskie and his family on what I expect will be strong bipartisan vote in favor of his confirmation to serve on the Third Circuit. It is long overdue.

Mr. President, the Senate just devoted almost 3 hours to the nomination of Thomas Vanaskie. Senate Republicans demanded this extended time for debate. I thank Senator Specter and Senator Casey for their statements. The Senators from Pennsylvania know Judge Vanaskie best, and strongly support him.

I was glad to see Chairman Dodd, Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Kaufman come to use some of the time to talk about Wall Street reform. That is what we should be working on. Wall Street reform, patent reform, and other matters that are important to the American people are what we should be debating. I was glad to see that time not wasted in another extended quorum call because those who demanded this time to debate the nomination did not use it.

I was glad to hear Senator Hagan talk about the two North Carolina nominees to the Fourth Circuit. They are among the 25 judicial nominees that Republicans have objected to considering even though they were voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously or nearly so.

With respect to the President's judicial nominees, as I have said, we are well behind the pace I set as chairman when the Senate was considering President Bush's nominees during the second year of his presidency. By this date in President Bush's second year, the Senate with a Democratic majority, had moved ahead to confirm 45 of his Federal circuit and district court judges. So far during President Obama's Presidency, Senate Republicans have allowed votes on only 18 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. During the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency we moved forward to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. Republican obstruction of President Obama's nominations makes it unlikely that the Senate will reach 50 such confirmations. Last year they allowed only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be confirmed, the lowest number in more than 50 years.

Today, thanks to the perseverance of the majority leader and the Senators from Pennsylvania, we will consider and confirm only the 19th of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. I have already noted Judge Vanaskie's qualifications. There is no dispute that he is well qualified. Indeed, the only concern his opponents have raised is their fixation that no Federal judge be aware of foreign law. As Senator Specter has explained, the matter on which Judge Vanaskie is criticized was a case involving an international treaty. To those whose ideology clouds their judgment, I remind them that the Constitution of the United States, our Constitution, expressly provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States ``and Treaties.'' Treaties are international by their nature. How treaties are interpreted by other courts in other jurisdictions is relevant. In fact, Justice Scalia observed, when writing for the unanimous Court in Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 226 (1996):

Because a treaty ratified by the United States is not only

the law of the land, see U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2, but

also an agreement among sovereign powers, we have

traditionally considered as aids to its interpretation the

negotiating and drafting history (travaux preparatoires) and

postratification understanding of the contracting parties.

I appreciate the significant steps taken by the majority leader to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Their refusal to promptly to consider nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominees. The majority leader was required to file five cloture motions to break through the logjam. I, again, urge the Senate Republican leadership to reverse its course and its obstructionist practices. Those practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of almost 100 nominations pending before the Senate awaiting final action. These are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's Presidency. I hope it will now, finally, be abandoned and we will be allowed to make progress after weeks and months of delay.

The vote on the confirmation of Judge Vanaksie's nomination is the first vote on judicial nominations that the Senate will hold in 5 weeks. Despite the dozens of judicial nominations ready for Senate consideration, none has been allowed to move forward for over a month. These are nominations to fill longstanding vacancies in the Federal courts. Of the 25 pending judicial nominations, 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without any Republican Senator voting against. I have been urging the Senate Republican leadership for months to allow votes on these noncontroversial nominations and to enter into time agreements to debate the others. We need to clear the backlog of nominations and move forward.

Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which have been designated ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, not only had the Senate confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges, but there were just seven judicial nominations on the calendar. All seven were confirmed within 9 days. By the end of this month, which is 9 days from now, we should clear the backlog that Republican obstruction has created and vote on the judicial nominations stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar.

By this date during President Bush's first term, circuit court nominations had waited less than a week, on average, before being voted on and confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee as long ago as five months, in November of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days after being reported before being allowed to be considered and confirmed.

I congratulate Judge Vanaskie and his family on what I expect will be strong bipartisan vote in favor of his confirmation to serve on the Third Circuit. His confirmation is long overdue.

Mr. President, I would say to my distinguished friend from Wisconsin, I was delighted to hear those words about Gaylord Nelson. I had the privilege of serving for a term with Senator Nelson. He was down-to-earth, respected by all in this body, and he had a commitment to the environment rarely ever matched. The Senator from Wisconsin has said it far more eloquently than I could. But I think how fortunate we are that we have this Senator from Wisconsin who has carried out that commitment to the environment, that commitment to the best ideals of our government. I know our dear, departed friend Gaylord Nelson would be so proud to have the Senator here representing Wisconsin.

Mr. President, a distinguished and giving Vermonter will be retiring after nearly 40 years of working on behalf of Vermont's prisoners and former prisoners. Rita Whalen McCaffrey is stepping down in May as the Executive Director of Dismas of Vermont, a residential program that helps former prisoners transition and reintegrate into society. Opened in Burlington in 1986, Dismas of Vermont has grown to provide supportive housing in three homes and three satellite apartments in the Burlington and Rutland communities, and has served more than a thousand men and women in the past 25 years.

Rita has engaged hundreds of Vermonters from all walks of life through the years to actively participate in the Mission of Dismas: to reconcile former prisoners with society and society with former prisoners through participation in a supportive family-like community. The Dismas model Rita founded in Vermont is powered by volunteers who cook and share the evening meal, choose to live in the community with the residents, and participate as active board members. The act of mutual reconciliation happens because community members come into the home and become a part of the Dismas family.

Rita's strong commitment to building and encouraging community support for former prisoners exemplifies the charitable spirit that has made Vermont one of the best places in the country to live. Her efforts have changed the direction of many lives and encouraged many to work towards reconciliation and respect. By steering former prisoners away from crime and toward a more constructive path, her work has also made the community a safer and better place to live. She leaves a legacy that is as inspiring as it is impressive, and her successor will have large shoes to fill.

As she moves on from a career path that began in 1974, I congratulate Rita for her invaluable service and leadership and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. President, one of my fondest memories of my undergraduate days at St. Michael's college was getting to know both Dr. William Tortolano and his extremely accomplished wife Martha.

I could tell many stories about the Tortolanos and the times they were also part of the Leahy family. I would rather let a story in the Burlington Free Press about his retirement after a 50-year career at St. Michael's speak for me, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. Presdient, the Senate yesterday, by a vote of 84 to 10, invoked cloture to end a Republican filibuster of President Obama's nomination of Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary at Treasury. As I said before that vote, the majority leader has taken a significant step to address the nominations crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction. Regrettably, that obstruction made it necessary for the Senate majority leader to file five cloture petitions to bring an end to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to carry out its advice and consent responsibilities.

The refusal by Republicans month after month to come to agreements to consider, debate, and vote on nominations is a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations. Their practices have led to delayed up-or-down votes for more than 100 nominations stalled from final Senate action. The American people should understand that these are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction and are mostly nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's entire Presidency.

Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as last November.

To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges, on its way to confirming 100 judicial nominations by the end of his first 2 years in office. I know, I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during much of that time, and worked hard to make sure that President Bush's nominees were not given the same unfair treatment given President Clinton's judicial nominees by Senate Republicans. Senate Democrats made real progress with respect to judicial vacancies. We did treat President Bush's judicial nominees more fairly than Republicans had treated President Clinton's and confirmed 100 during the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002.

President Obama began sending us judicial nominations 2 months earlier than President Bush had and still only 18 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed. If Republicans would agree to allow the Senate to act on the additional 25 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we could be at a comparable figure to the pace we attained in 2001 and 2002. As it stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved during President Bush's first 2 years.

Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations despite vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which are ``judicial emergencies,'' as caseloads and backlogs grow and vacancies are left open longer and longer.

I understand and share the frustration of the Senator from Rhode Island who came before the Senate earlier today to speak about this obstruction. In the time he had, he asked the Senate to consider 5 of the 25 judicial nominees stalled on the calendar, and each time there was a Republican objection. He made the point that these judicial nominations have not only been waiting a long time, but they were approved unanimously or nearly unanimously by all Republican and Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Still, after weeks, and in some cases months, Republicans will not consent to their consideration. They were nominees who are supported by home State Senators, including Republican home State Senators. Still, Republicans will not enter into agreements for their consideration.

I began urging the Republican leadership last December to allow the Senate to make progress on these nominations by agreeing to immediate votes on those judicial nominees that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent, and to agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others. Presently, there are 18 judicial nominations being stalled from Senate consideration by Republican objection even though when they were considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee no Republican Senators on the committee voted against a single one. This is the Republican strategy of delay and obstruction-- delay and obstruct even those nominees they support. They delayed confirmation of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the eleventh circuit until this year. They delayed confirmation of Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the third circuit. They delayed and filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit, who was then unanimously approved.

I further call upon Republicans to agree to time agreements on each of the other seven judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. Only one Republican Senator in the Judiciary Committee voted against Judge Wynn of North Carolina; only three voted against Judge Vanaskie of Pennsylvania; only four voted against Ms. Stranch of Tennessee, who is supported by the senior Senator from Tennessee, a Republican and a member of the Senate Republican leadership. Senate Republicans should identify the time they require to debate the nominations of Justice Butler of Wisconsin, Judge Chen of California, Judge Pearson of Ohio, and Judge Martinez of Colorado, who are all well-qualified nominees for district court vacancies, which are typically considered and confirmed without lengthy debate. They should not now be held up because they were targeted unfairly in committee by Republicans applying a new standard for district court nominees never used with President Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority.

Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress--not the 100 we confirmed in 2001 and 2002. Last year, only 12 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. That was the lowest total in more than 50 years. So far this year, only six more have been considered.

The majority leader was required to file cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth

circuit. Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the time-consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to 0. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier or without having to end their filibuster on that nominee either.

Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the third circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the second circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records, and both were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year with bipartisan support. Judge Chin, who was the first Asian-Pacific American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the ninth circuit, and if confirmed would be the only active Asian-Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by the committee unanimously.

This obstruction and delay is part of a partisan pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate go exceedingly slow. The practice is continuing. The majority leader has had to file cloture 22 times already to end the obstruction of President Obama's nominees. That does not count the many other nominees who were delayed or are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. That is the frustration I share with Senator Whitehouse and many others. If Republicans wish to oppose a nomination they can, but they are stalling noncontroversial nominations that they support.

The Senate should be better than this. These Republican practices are destructive. When we see that Americans are frustrated with Congress, it is these kinds of practices that contribute to that frustration. I urge the Senate Republican leadership to change its ways. Agree to prompt consideration of noncontroversial nominees and enter into time agreements to debate and vote on those nominees that they oppose. Quit wasting the time of the Senate. The American people want us to act on Wall Street reform, not be bogged down in delaying tactics for the sake of delay.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Madam President, I am going to actually speak on a different matter. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be moved to morning business.

Mr. President, today the Senate finally confirmed the nomination of Marisa Demeo for a 15-year term as a judge for the District of Columbia Superior Court. Her nomination was the longest pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, having been stalled since it was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last May--nearly a year ago--by voice vote.

There was no reason for this nomination to have been delayed so long. Indeed, once the majority leader pressed the matter by filing for cloture, Republicans agreed to 6 hours of debate and then used only a small portion of that. The bipartisan vote in favor of Judge Demeo is hardly unexpected, just delayed a year.

Judge Demeo has served for 3 years as a magistrate judge on the court to which she has been confirmed. She is only the second Hispanic woman to hold that position. Judge Demeo is an experienced former prosecutor and Justice Department veteran with a sterling professional record. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several times to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in Washington, DC, and in support of Judge Demeo's nomination.

Judge Demeo should have been confirmed long ago. This sort of obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not usually controversial.

Those Senators who opposed this nomination and voted against it will have to explain their vote. Some tried. I do not think references to ``lifestyle'' have a place in this debate. I was also struck by those who selectively cited her advocacy for various causes when she was previously employed as an advocate as somehow rendering her unfit for judicial service. These same Senators were willing to give President Bush's nominees the benefit of the

doubt, but apparently not those of President Obama. Their mantra when there was a Republican President nominating Republican activists was that they would be able to put aside those views or that they were merely doing their job or representing a client. Apparently that leeway only applies to Republican nominees.

I commend those Republican Senators who bucked their party to vote in favor of this fine young woman and well-qualified nominee.

I strongly supported the confirmation of Judge Demeo and regret that it has taken nearly a year for her nomination to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate. I congratulate her on her confirmation to the Superior Court and have every confidence she will be a fair and thoughtful judge.

Mr. President, today is Justice John Paul Stevens' birthday, and I cannot help but think about that and some wonderful conversations I have had with him of late. As I said, his retirement from the Supreme Court will begin to draw to a close an extraordinary judicial career spanning four decades, including 35 years on the Nation's highest Court.

It is interesting, Justice Stevens and I both came to Washington in the wake of the Watergate scandal in 1975. President Ford was impressed by Justice Stevens' anticorruption record, including his investigation of two Illinois Supreme Court Justices who were charged with accepting bribes. His confirmation to the Supreme Court was the first of a dozen Supreme Court nominations I have considered and voted on in my years in the Senate. As a young freshman Senator, it was my privilege to support his confirmation in 1975. Incidentally, he was nominated by a Republican President and considered by an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate. From the time he was nominated until the time he was confirmed unanimously, it was 2\1/2\ weeks.

Justice Stevens is the only sitting Justice with Active military service during wartime. He is the last Justice from the ``Greatest Generation.'' He has never turned away when the Nation sought his service. He worked as a Navy intelligence officer during World War II, and that earned him a Bronze Star.

Justice Stevens' unique and enduring perspective is irreplaceable; his stalwart adherence to the rule of law is unparalleled. The Federal judiciary and indeed the entire Nation will miss his principled jurisprudence. Today, as he marks another milestone with the celebration of his 90th birthday, and as we continue to honor his legacy, I want to mention just a few of his most notable opinions.

During my 35 years in the Senate, I have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court in only a few cases. The most recent case was very important to me. It involved a Vermont musician named Diana Levine.

Ms. Levine was forced--remember, she is a musician--she was forced to endure the amputation of her arm after she was injected with a drug to treat nausea. The drug maker failed to include critical information on its warning label that could have saved Ms. Levine's arm, and she ultimately sued the

drug maker for this failure. A Vermont jury awarded Ms. Levine damages for the injuries that forever altered her life and career. Justice Stevens wrote the Court's opinion in that important case. He concluded that Food and Drug Administration approval of a drug for sale does not prevent that corporation from being held accountable under State consumer protection laws. In Ms. Levine's case, a Vermont jury heard all the facts and determined that the corporation had improperly labeled its product and failed to warn about the risks of injecting the drug. Justice Stevens' opinion in the Levine case ensured that millions of Americans who rely on pharmaceuticals will be protected by their own state laws, and will not be denied access to justice if they are injured. Although most Americans never expect that they will need to go to court, the right to do so is enshrined in our Constitution. Justice Stevens wrote a similarly compelling decision for the Court in a case called Tennessee v. Lane.

Justice Stevens has written important opinions in cases in which the Supreme Court has upheld the power of Congress to pass legislation that protects the Americans we represent. He has brought to his opinions a keen understanding of the distinct roles set forth in our Constitution for courts and for the democratically elected Congress. He has maintained a fervent respect for both.

In Gonzales v. Raich and in Tennessee v. Lane, Justice Stevens authored the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the actions of Congress to protect Americans. I suspect these precedents will be even more important as the Supreme Court continues to examine laws passed by Congress to protect Americans from discriminatory health insurance policies and fraudulent Wall Street practices.

Justice Stevens has also written important decisions that involve the enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress. He authored a powerful opinion for the Court in one of the most important environmental protection decisions in recent memory. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency had to live up to its name and mission in implementing the Clean Air Act, despite the Bush administration's refusal to do so. Justice Stevens wrote: ``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.'' The Court rejected the Bush administration's rationale for refusing to enforce the law. The Nation will be better served for that decision.

Some of the most important cases decided by this Supreme Court in the last decade have involved the limits of Presidential power in time of war, and Justice Stevens has left his mark on many of them. His experience serving this country in wartime no doubt contributed to his understanding. I said earlier that he is the only member of the Supreme Court who has served his country in wartime in the military. In Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that our Federal courts have jurisdiction over detainees held by the Government, even though they are not citizens of the United States. A few years later, Justice Stevens wrote for the court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and concluded that our Government has to follow our laws, including the Geneva Conventions, in trying prisoners detained at Guantnamo Bay. At their core, these decisions upheld the notion that the rule of law applies even in a time of war--something the Founders of this country believed.

As the most senior Justice on the Court, Justice Stevens has the authority to write the opinion of the Court when the Chief Justice is in dissent. In two of the most important civil rights cases of the decade, Grutter v. Bollinger and Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Stevens extended the privilege of the writing the majority opinion to other Justices. In Grutter, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice Stevens joined that opinion, which recognized a compelling educational interest in racial diversity. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that consensual sexual conduct was protected by the Constitution from government intrusion. The majority opinion, in which Justice Stevens joined, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The impact of these two rulings on hardworking Americans was immediate; I hope they will endure.

A decade ago, the Supreme Court unnecessarily waded into the political thicket to determine the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. In a scathing dissent, Justice Stevens lamented that the decision would damage the Court's reputation as impartial. Of course, he was right, and it did damage the Court's reputation. He had noted, and I quote:

Although we may never know with complete certainty the

identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election,

the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the

Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of

the rule of law.

He was right to speak so critically of what was a blatant political decision.

While the public's memory of that politically charged decision finally began to recede, the Supreme Court again opened the floodgates, issuing its latest election-related decision in the Citizens United case. In Citizens United, five Justices with the stroke of a pen overturned a century of law to permit corporations to overwhelm and distort the democratic process. Those five justices substituted their own preferences for that of Congress, which had built on decades of legal development to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation after an open and extensive debate. In order to reach its divisive decision granting corporations, banks, and insurance companies rights that were once reserved for individual Americans, the Court overstepped the proper judicial role, and rejected not just the conclusions of the elected branches, but also its own recent precedent upholding the very same law it now overturned. In what may be his most powerful dissent, Justice Stevens noted that the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.''

I agree with Justice Stevens in both of these dissents. I join him in his concern for the Court's reputation. Two of the three branches of government are involved in campaigns and elections. When the American people see the courts reaching out to influence those elections, they rightly get suspicious of its impartiality.

While I supported his confirmation, as I said before, as a very junior, very new Senator, I have not always agreed with Justice Stevens. But my admiration for his service is not based merely on the results of the cases that came before him, nor solely on his judgment or his forthrightness, but, rather, also on the manner in which he approached the law and his vigilant concern for public confidence in our courts.

If we lose that public confidence in our Court, we lose one of the greatest mainstays of our democracy. If a society does not have confidence in the integrity and the independence of their courts, there is no way they can maintain a democracy, there is no way they can maintain a check and balance.

I have always respected the way in which Justice Stevens has conducted himself as a Justice and the way he has explained his conclusions. He and I share a view of government transparency that is a vital element of our democracy. No one can question Justice Stevens' integrity, nor his dedication to public service.

Today, I join a grateful nation in wishing Justice John Paul Stevens a very happy 90th birthday. We are indebted to him for his service. I hope the next nomination to the Supreme Court will honor his extraordinary legacy.

The choice of a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important and enduring decisions any President can make. A year before he died, President Gerald Ford wrote this about Justice Stevens: ``I am prepared to allow history's judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination 30 years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' What a tribute. No doubt every President would want to be able to say that about the quality of his Court selections.

The law is not a game to be played or a puzzle to be solved. The law is intended to serve the people--protecting the freedom of individuals from the

tyranny of government or the mob, and helping to organize our society for the good of all. No Justice should substitute his or her personal preferences and overrule congressional efforts to protect hardworking Americans pursuant to our constitutional role.

I am looking forward to meeting with President Obama tomorrow to discuss his selection of a nominee to succeed Justice Stevens. Then, and in any private discussions, I will suggest that he pick someone who approaches every case with an open mind and a commitment to fairness. Someone who will heed the Vermont marble inscribed above the entrance of the Supreme Court which pledges ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Someone like Justice John Paul Stevens.

Mr. President, today is Equal Pay Day: After 16 months of work, professional women today will finally have earned what their male counterparts earned in just 12 months of work last year. It is shameful that gender discrimination still exists in our country, and I hope today will serve as an important reminder that we must redouble our efforts to fully close the wage gap.

Forty-six years have passed since the Equal Pay Act was enacted, yet the disparity between women's and men's salaries stubbornly remains. Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Unfortunately, a narrow ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 meant that those who are subject to pay discrimination have no claim to remedies unless a suit is filed no more than 180 days after the pay discrimination first takes place, even if they were unaware of the discriminatory pay. This ruling eroded longstanding interpretation of discrimination laws and created a new obstacle for victims of pay discrimination to receive justice.

Last year, the new Congress achieved what could not be done before: We enacted the ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act'', which I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Mikulski, Kennedy and others. This bill restored victim's ability to file suit for pay discrimination and became the first bill President Obama signed into law. Lilly Ledbetter, the courageous woman who was the subject of decades of pay discrimination, continues to fight to ensure other women do not experience the same wage disparity she did for so many years. Lilly visited Vermont last fall as the keynote speaker at the Women's Economic Conference I host every year. Vermonters who attended that conference have written me and stopped me in the street to tell me how much her story meant to them. I hope Lilly continues to speak to inspire thousands more women to pursue pay equity.

The ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act'' was an important first step in supporting equal pay for equal work, but our efforts must not stop there. Today, women are still paid just 77 cents on average for every dollar a man makes. Over the course of a womans career, the pay gap will mean between $400,000 and $2 million in lost wages. Eight years ago Vermont acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits paying female or male workers differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. As a result, Vermont leads the country in having one of the narrowest wage gaps between women and men. Today, in celebration of Equal Pay Day, Vermont's Business & Professional Women and the Vermont Commission on Women will join their member organizations at the Vermont State House for a proclamation signing and discussion of important issues relative to women.

Two bills awaiting action in the Senate include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The ``Paycheck Fairness Act'', originally introduced by Senator Clinton, of which I am an original cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, strengthens penalties for equal pay violations, and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House with bipartisan support more than a year ago and deserves action in the Senate. The ``Fair Pay Act'', introduced by Senator Harkin--another bill that I cosponsor--requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions and requires employers to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue but an issue of inherent fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background and is not limited to one career path or level of education. We should pass the ``Paycheck Fairness Act'' and the ``Fair Pay Act'' and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters are not subject to the same discrimination that has burdened American women for decades.

Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Since 1981, people across the Nation have observed this week with candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our commitment to crime victims and their families. It is vitally important that we recognize the needs of crime victims and their family members, and work together to promote victims' rights and services.

My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago when I served as State's attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and witnessed first-hand how crime can devastate victims' lives. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents additional ordeals for those already victimized.

I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. This critical piece of legislation provides grants for direct services to victims, such as State crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are entirely funded from a reserve fund created from criminal fines and penalties, and are provided without a single dime of funding from Federal taxpayers.

I have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. Several years ago, we made sure the fund had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the Crime Victims Fund would run out of money, leaving them stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the fund in a given year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. These resources are appropriately set aside to assist victims of crime and their families. We have had to work hard to protect the Crime Victims Fund, and I have consistently supported raising the spending cap to allow more money out of the fund and into the field.

As we observe Crime Victims' Rights Week, I would like to highlight a program in Vermont that has developed a unique and innovative approach to supporting victims of crime. In 2006, I was pleased to help the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services secure funding to design and implement the Burlington Parallel Justice Project. This program addresses the limitations of traditional criminal justice and restorative justice models, and represents a collaborative approach to repair the harm caused by crime. Under this program representatives from different sectors of the community, from government to law enforcement to service providers to local business, come together to address the needs of crime victims in a comprehensive manner.

The concept of parallel justice was developed by Susan Herman, a former executive director of the National Center for Crime Victims, who emphasized the importance of having a victim-driven path through the criminal justice system. With the help of Susan and the National Center for Crime Victims, the Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services, the Burlington Community Justice Center and the Burlington Police Department implemented her vision in their community by forming a Parallel Justice Commission. The commission responds to the needs of victims by working with local service providers and others to address those needs, whether it is emotional support, medical cost assistance, or property repair. By hearing from victims about their experiences with the criminal justice system, they also bring about systemic change where needed. The result is a comprehensive approach to victim assistance that enhances the relationships between different parts of the community and builds safer and stronger neighborhoods.

The Burlington Parallel Justice Project is a national demonstration project for parallel justice and has been able to thrive and expand due to funding from VOCA assistance grants. Last month, Burlington police chief Michael Schirling, a member of the Parallel Justice Commission, testified before the Senate Judiciary committee about innovative crime reduction strategies. He spoke about the success of the parallel justice program as an example of a community policing model and emphasized that developing innovative and effective strategies will be increasingly crucial to effective public safety. I could not agree more. I have often advocated for Federal support of meaningful, community-based solutions to crime and other issues we face in Vermont and across the Nation.

Both Congress and the States have become more sensitive to the rights of crime victims since I was a prosecutor. We have greatly improved our crime victims' assistance programs and made advances in recognizing crime victims' rights. But we still have more to do. As we observe National Crime Victims' Rights week this year, we must renew our national commitment to help crime victims by supporting programs like the Parallel Justice Project, and protecting the Crime Victims Fund.

I want to commend and thank Judy Rex, Karen Tronsgard-Scott, and the many other victims' advocates and service providers in Vermont and across the country who show their dedication every day of the year to crime victims. I am thankful for their advice and insights over the years, and I look forward to continuing our work to address the needs of victims everywhere.

Mr. President, the majority leader has taken a significant step to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of President Obama's highly qualified nominations and the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities. Regrettably, Republican obstruction has made it necessary for the majority leader to file cloture to bring an end to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to consider at least some of the long-stalled nominations languishing on the Senate's Executive Calendar.

In a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations, Senate Republicans have refused for month after month to join agreements to consider, debate and vote on nominations. Their practices have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of over 80 nominations now stalled before the Senate, awaiting final action. The American people should understand that these are all nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's presidency.

Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as last November. Those 25 judicial nominations are more than the 18 Federal circuit and district court nominees that Republicans have allowed the Senate to consider and act upon during President Obama's administration.

To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges. President Obama began sending the Senate judicial nominations 2 months earlier than President Bush did, and still only 18 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed. If we had acted on the additional 25 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we would have made comparable progress. As it stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved by this time in President Bush's first term.

Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations, despite vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which are ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal district and circuit court judges; there were just 7 judicial nominations on the calendar, and all 7 were confirmed within 12 days. That was normal order for the Democratic Senate majority considering President Bush's nominations. Circuit court nominations by this date in his first term waited an average of less than a week to be confirmed. By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court nominees reported back in November and December of last year. The seven circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far have waited an average of 124 days reported to be considered and confirmed after being favorably--more than 4 months compared to less than 1 week for President Bush's nominees--and those delays are increasing.

In the 17 months in 2001 and 2002 that I chaired the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations. In stark contrast, to date, the Senate has only been allowed to act on 18 circuit and district court nominations. Twenty-two of the 25 nominations pending on the calendar have been pending for more than a month. Eighteen were reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent--without a single negative vote from any Republican member. Still they wait.

Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress. Last year, only 12 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. The lowest total in more than 50 years. We have to do far more to address this growing crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies.

It has been almost 5 months since I began publicly urging the Senate Republican leadership to abandon its strategy of obstruction and delay of the President's judicial nominees. But we have not considered a judicial nomination since March 17, when we finally confirmed the nomination of Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island to the First Circuit. Even though Judge Thompson had two decades of experience on her State's courts, and her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote, it stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar for nearly 2 months before she was unanimously confirmed, 98-0. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier.

Before that vote, the majority leader was required to file cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit. Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the time consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to zero. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier or for the filibuster of that nominee either.

Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the Third Circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the Second Circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records, and both were reported

by the Judiciary Committee last year with bipartisan support. Judge Chin, who was the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the Ninth Circuit, and who, if confirmed, would be the only active Asian-Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by the committee unanimously.

The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the extended Republican effort to prevent Senate consideration of the nomination of Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. Professor Schroeder was first nominated by President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months, with not a single explanation of the delay. Then, as the year drew to a close, Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session, and it was returned to the President without action, forcing the process to begin all over again. President Obama renominated Professor Schroeder early this year, and his nomination was reconsidered and rereported by the Judiciary Committee with Republican support. A scholar and public servant who has served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across the political spectrum.

Democrats treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President Obama's nominee, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96 to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast, Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June and will require cloture to be invoked before the Senate can finally have an up-or-down vote.

The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the obstruction of the longest-pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, that of Marisa Demeo to the District of Columbia Superior Court. Her nomination has been blocked since it was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May 2009. This sort of obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not usually controversial. The nomination of Magistrate Judge Demeo, an experienced former prosecutor and Justice Department veteran who is the second Hispanic woman nominated to this court, is one I strongly support. I know Judge Demeo and have known her for years. The chief judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several times to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital. As usual, the cost of Republican obstruction is borne by the American people.

Not long after President Obama was sworn in, Senate Republicans signaled their strategy of obstruction, threatening to filibuster his nominations before he had made a single one, in their letter of March 2, 2009. The stated basis for their threat was to ensure consultation with home State Senators. President Obama has consulted with home state Senators of both parties, yet Senate Republicans filibustered the very first of President Obama's judicial nominations, the nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite such consultation. The Senate had to invoke cloture to consider Judge Hamilton's nomination, even though he was a well-respected district court judge supported of Senator Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, with whom President Obama consulted before making the nomination.

Senate Republicans have ratcheted up their bad practices from the 1990s when they pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, creating a vacancies crisis on the Federal bench.

Democrats did not do the same to President Bush's nominees. I followed through on my commitment to treat them more fairly. I worked hard in 2001 and 2002, even after the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, holding hearings, including during Senate recess periods, in order to swiftly consider President Bush's nominees. That is why the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees by the end of 2002. Democrats only refused to rubber stamp a handful of the most extreme, ideological and divisive of President Bush's nominees.

During the Bush Presidency Senate Republicans contended that filibusters of judicial nominations were ``unconstitutional.'' Now that President Obama is in the White House, Senate Republicans have filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton, and Judge Barbara Keenan, who was then confirmed unanimously. The same Republican Senators who recently threatened to blow up the Senate unless every nominee received an up-or-down vote are now engaged in another attempt to abuse the rules of the Senate and undermine the democratic process. Republican Senators who just a few years ago insisted that ``elections have consequences'' have now made the use of filibusters, holds, and excessive procedural delays the new normal in the Senate. They seem intent on continuing their destructive practices.

It is regrettable that the majority leader has to file cloture on these mainstream nominations today, just to allow the Senate to hold the up-or-down votes that Republican Senators once demanded for the most extreme and ideological nominees of a Republican President. I thank him for doing so, and look forward to the confirmation of these nominees.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week, the country took another important step toward a more just and perfect union when President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for

Medical Emergencies. I applaud the President for this effort to ensure that every person enjoys the same right to have their loved ones with them in hospitals and to designate surrogate decision makers when they are hospitalized, often in their time of greatest need. No one should be forced to face important medical decisions or spend their last moments apart from their loved ones just because the person they love happens to be of the same sex.

The President has directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations prohibiting hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid from denying visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The memorandum issued last week also calls for greater enforcement of existing regulations that ensure all patients' legal representatives have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients' care.

There is a tragic history of discrimination in health care, but fortunately, we are making progress to end it. Hospitals were racially segregated until the 1960s, when Congress passed legislation prohibiting that discrimination in hospitals that are recipients of Federal funding. The President's memorandum is a similarly important step toward equal treatment. For too long, some hospital patients have been denied the basic rights of receiving visitors and designating surrogate decision makers without a remedy in Federal law. In Vermont, many same-sex couples have sought to be recognized as committed couples by law to ensure that they and their families are entitled to these rights. Those families should not lose those rights when traveling out of State.

The fight for equal rights protections continues in Congress. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, which would provide domestic partners of Federal employees all of the protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees, including participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries and health insurance benefits. I also support the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2009, which would end the taxation of health benefits provided to domestic partners in workplaces that provide domestic partner health benefits to their employees.

Respecting the rights of all hospital patients to have their loved ones near in times of crisis is something every American should support.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a matter of urgent importance for the people of Guatemala and for U.S. relations with Guatemala.

Later this month, President Colom will select Guatemala's next Attorney General from a slate of six candidates. This may be among the most important decisions he makes this year, at a time when drug trafficking and other organized crimes, assassinations of human rights defenders, and other social and political activists, corruption, and impunity threaten the foundation of Guatemala's fragile democracy.

In the 3 three months of this year alone, at least five Guatemalan human rights defenders, social activists, and trade unionists have been murdered, including two members of the Resistance Front for the Defense of Natural Resources--its president, Evelinda Ramirez Reyes, and Octavio Roblero. Also killed were Juan Antonio Chea, a Mayan indigenous lawyer who worked with the Human Rights Office of the Archbishop and the National Reparations Program; Pedro Antonio Garcia of the Malacatan Municipal Workers Union; and German Antonio Curup, a member of a group opposed to the construction of a cement plant in San Juan Sacatepequez. Mr. Curup was murdered in particularly brutal fashion--abducted on February 11, his body was dumped 2 days later, throat cut and showing signs of torture. This type of brutality is not unusual in Guatemala, nor is it unusual that no one has been arrested or punished for those crimes.

The 1996 Peace Accords were a historic milestone, ending three decades of civil war when government security forces and associated death squads and civil patrols targeted anyone who was considered subversive. Tens of thousands of rural Mayan villagers, students, lawyers, journalists, and other social and political activists were arbitrarily arrested, tortured, and killed. The URNG rebels were also guilty of atrocities. Almost no one has been punished for those crimes.

While the Peace Accords spelled out commitments by the government and goals for the country's future political, economic, and social development, progress has been disappointing. Implementation of many elements of the accords has been repeatedly delayed, and widespread debilitating poverty, impunity, and women's and indigenous peoples' rights remain urgent concerns. These are among the key issues the Peace Accords were designed to address, which were at the root of the conflict.

In the meantime, in the absence of a credible or effective justice system, corruption has flourished and violent crime has skyrocketed. There has also been a steady emigration of poor Guatemalans seeking jobs in the United States.

Effectively confronting these problems requires political will, which has too often been lacking in Guatemala. Secretary Clinton expressed the willingness of the United States to stand with the Guatemalan people during her visit there on March 5, and I hope the Guatemalan Government will seize this opportunity to develop ambitious and effective strategies to confront these challenges.

There is no better place to start than by appointing an Attorney General who has the integrity, experience, courage, and determination to show that justice can be a reality for all the people of Guatemala regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or economic status.

Investigating and prosecuting assassinations of human rights defenders, as well as some of the most notorious political crimes, should be a priority. The United States is helping through our donations to the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG. The CICIG is doing an important job and should continue, but it is no substitute for an effective Ministry of Justice. We are ready and willing to support an Attorney General who demonstrates the necessary professional qualifications and commitment. But absent those qualifications and commitment, as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I would find it difficult to justify spending more resources on a fruitless quest for justice reform in Guatemala.

A related imperative is reforming Guatemala's police forces, which are undertrained, underpaid, underequipped, and infected with corruption. President Colom deserves great credit for appointing Helen Mack, a widely respected human rights defender, to develop a plan for police reform, and I look forward to her recommendations. An Attorney General whose integrity matches that of Helen Mack's would be a welcome step.

Guatemala has a troubled history and is facing immense challenges, both internally and along its borders, as it is rapidly becoming a favorite haven for Latin criminal organizations. Yet as the land of one of the most accomplished pre-Colombian civilizations in this hemisphere whose indigenous descendants enrich present-day Guatemala in countless ways, spectacular tropical forests and towering volcanoes, it is also a country with great potential. The United States is prepared to help tackle these challenges if Guatemalan Government officials in key positions merit our support. I urge President Colom to use the opportunity of selecting Guatemala's next Attorney General to send that message clearly.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to call the Senate's attention to the inspiring work of Donald and Sarah ``Sally'' Goodrich of Bennington, VT, through their efforts to turn their own devastating personal tragedy into new opportunity and hope for children and families a world away in Afghanistan.

Confronted by the death of their son Peter aboard the flight that struck the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Don and Sally

Goodrich channeled their grief and energy into a foundation established in his memory--a foundation with a unique and uplifting purpose.

The Peter M. Goodrich Foundation provides food, clean water, shelter and educational opportunities to Afghan children facing extreme hardship, dismal circumstances and little hope for the future. The foundation's mission is far broader than offering basic humanitarian services to a country torn by conflict; its work recognizes the untapped potential of a generation of Afghan children, helping them to rise above hate and to embrace values based on understanding, tolerance and respect.

With this vision and this goal, the Goodrich Foundation supports exchange programs that bring Afghan students to the United States and vocational programs that allow them to put their knowledge and skills to use upon their return to Afghanistan. The foundation also promotes the work of The Afghan Women's Writing Project, which helps Afghan women to be heard in their own right rather than solely through their male relatives. These are just a few examples of the tremendous amount of good the foundation has achieved in less than a decade. We can all be grateful to Sally and Don for opening their hearts, amid their personal grief, and lighting an enduring flame of hope after one of our Nation's darkest hours.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of the Senate the bravery and sacrifice of a great American, CPT John Lonergan, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry at the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. His memory will be commemorated on May 8, 2010, with the dedication of a monument in his hometown of Carrick on Suir, County Tipperary, Ireland.

Amid severe famine and the 1848 rebellion against British rule, the Lonergan family was forced to flee Ireland and made their way to Vermont. In 1862, as the American Civil War erupted, John Lonergan mobilized Company A of the 13th Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the so-called ``Irish Company.'' His unit served 9 months of active duty in Virginia as part of the 2nd Vermont Brigade guarding the outer defenses of Washington, DC. As General Lee and General Grant maneuvered the armies of the South and North during the summer of 1863, Lonergan's Company A was sent on a forced march to Pennsylvania for what would be the Battle of Gettysburg.

On July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Lonergan, now a captain, and his company successfully recaptured a Union cannon lost to the rebels and took prisoner more than 80 Confederate soldiers. Captain Lonergan was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his leadership and gallantry during this battle. The next day, he led his company of Vermont soldiers in an attack against the right flank of a massive Confederate assault on Cemetery Ridge. Company A made an invaluable contribution to drive back the Confederate charge at a crucial moment in the Battle of Gettysburg.

After the War, Captain Lonergan worked to overcome existing prejudice against Americans of Irish descent by organizing the first public celebrations of St. Patrick's Day in Vermont. He never lost his love for Ireland, and he was apparently a passionate advocate for liberation from British rule. Captain Lonergan continued serving his new country as a U.S. Customs officer, assigned to duty in Montreal, Canada. He died in 1902 and was buried in Burlington, VT.

We Vermonters are proud to recognize the bravery of Captain Lonergan, those of Irish descent who fought alongside him, and the thousands of other Vermonters who fought in the Civil War. Vermont, per capita, had more of its sons die fighting in the Civil War than any other State.

For their service, bravery and sacrifice, we thank all of them, and all those who continue this proud tradition as they serve the Nation today in Afghanistan, Iraq and other outposts across the globe.