Floor Statements

Madam President, on January 28, 2010, I introduced S. 2968, the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010, along with the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions. I appreciate that the Senate moved quickly to call up and pass this legislation by unanimous consent. The speed with which the Senate acted on this legislation demonstrates what we can do when we work in a bipartisan fashion.

I recently received a suggestion from the chairman and ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, who introduced companion legislation, to improve and clarify the language of the section that requires a study and report. Specifically, they suggested that Congress should strike the words ``by corporations'' from paragraph (a)(1) of section 4. I agree that this suggestion adds clarity and, should S. 2968 be enacted, I will work with Senator Sessions and the House Committee on the Judiciary to amend the study language in subsequent legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, we have several Senators who wish to speak on the first vote that is coming up this afternoon, the Greenaway nomination. Is the Senator going to give us any time? Because our time is also being used by him right now. I was wondering if at some point we might have time to speak on the Greenaway nomination.

No.

Madam President, my understanding is that time was to be used for both Becker and Greenaway. I was wondering, since Greenaway is the first vote we are going to come to, whether we will have time on that.

Madam President, if the Senator would yield further, the reason I was here is I was told the time, 45 minutes, was to be used for both nominations. If the Senator from Iowa wishes to use all the time for his nomination, I also point out that Judge Greenaway has been waiting since last June for his vote. But certainly the Senator has the floor. I understand he has the floor and I understand he can take all the time and not leave any time to the other Senators who are supposed to receive time.

Madam President, no apology is necessary. The only reason I raised that is because I heard what the order was earlier this afternoon.

Today the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Judge Joseph Greenaway to fill the vacancy created by Justice Alito on the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Greenaway is an outstanding jurist who has served for nearly 14 years on the Federal district court in New Jersey. President Obama nominated him last June. That nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee more than 4 months ago, without a single dissenting vote. He should have been confirmed long ago. I have been speaking about this nomination for some time to call attention to the unexplained and unnecessary delay in its consideration. The Senators from New Jersey have both come to the Senate floor on repeated occasions calling for consideration. Judge Greenaway will finally be confirmed today.

I continue to be deeply disappointed by the delays and obstruction caused by Senate Republicans. Regrettably, Judge Greenaway's long- stalled nomination is another example of these tactics. As I previously explained in a statement on January 25, the Senate majority leader came before the Senate on January 22 to highlight the delay in the consideration of Judge Greenaway. Senate Republicans would not agree to consider his nomination that week, or the next week, or the next. It took the persistence of the majority leader and the vocal support of the Senators from New Jersey, who spoke on January 25 and, again on February 2, about the Republican stalling, to pry this nomination loose. That is wrong. It should not take such effort to get Senate Republicans to vote on a nomination, especially one that most, if not all, of them are likely to support. We should be able in regular order to consider noncontroversial nominations like that of Judge Greenaway without months of delay.

Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more than 50 years--since 1953 when President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session.

Last week, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issues retreat, I asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to the Senate as quickly as possible, and to commit to work with us, both Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far since taking office the President has reached across the aisle working with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations. Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President responded by stating:

Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it is not just judges, unfortunately, Pat, it is also all our Federal appointees. We have got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified; nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business.

On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of Indiana, Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--Evan Bayh, Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended. How long did it take us? Six months, 6, 7 months for somebody who was supported by the Democratic and Republican senator from that State. And you can multiply that across the board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that this is not how we should be doing business.

I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the way the Senate behave. Last week, the Senate had to vote to invoke cloture and end the 15th filibuster of President Obama's nominations to fill important posts in the executive branch and the judiciary. That number does not include the many other nominees who have been prevented up-or-down votes in the Senate by the silent filibuster of Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. Every single Republican Senator who voted last Monday voted against cloture and to keep filibustering a well-qualified nominee. Every single Republican voted to obstruct the Senate from doing the business of the American people.

Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated abuse of filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the norm for Senate Republicans. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.

The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill vacancies on the Federal courts, is having a debilitating effect on our government's ability to serve the American people. Hard-working Americans who seek justice in our overburdened Federal courts are the ones who will pay the price for Republicans' obstruction and delay. They deserve better.

Even after years of Republican pocket filibusters that blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees from even having a hearing and led to skyrocketing judicial vacancies, Democrats did not practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President Bush's nominations. We worked hard to reverse the Republican obstructionism. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges.

By February 9, 2002, the comparable date in President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 32 circuit and district court nominations. Judge Greenaway will be only the 15th Federal circuit or district judge allowed to be confirmed. That is less than half of where we were in 2002.

During just the second year of President Bush's first term, the Democratic Senate majority confirmed 72 judicial nominations and helped reduce the vacancies left by Republican obstructionism from over 110 to 59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.

We continued to be fair and worked to reduce vacancies even during President Bush's last year in office. With Senate Democrats again in the majority, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits.

As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked again, as they did due to Republican obstruction in the 1990s. These vacancies are again being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today and would be headed toward 180. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen.

Republican Senators insisted on stalling confirmation of the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90 votes. They insisted on stalling the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. They unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November, having delayed its consideration for months. They stalled Judge Beverly Martin's nomination for at least 2 months because they would not agree to consider it before January 20. They have stalled for 3 additional weeks on Judge Greenaway's nomination. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who

are then confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate once they are finally allowed to be considered.

Judge Greenaway's nomination is yet another example. He is a good judge who had years of experience as a Federal prosecutor. He received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Senator Sessions praised him at his confirmation hearing. He should have been confirmed last year, and he would have but for Republican objection.

I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and allow prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration: Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Judge William Conley, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Justice Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; and Justice Louis Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin.

I commend the Senators from New Jersey for their hard work that has proven effective in connection with the nomination of Judge Greenaway and I congratulate Judge Greenaway and his family.

I note the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey and Senator Menendez from New Jersey wish to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Menendez to be able to have 3 minutes also. I ask for an additional 6 minutes for the Senators from New Jersey, which is considerably more than I had.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate will proceed to a vote on a well-qualified nominee for the seat vacated by Justice Alito when he was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, I came to the floor to address one of the latest Supreme Court cases where Justice Alito's vote was both decisive and divisive. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 5 to 4, and it illustrates how the change in just one justice on the Supreme Court can have serious consequences for hardworking Americans and for our democracy.

This controversial decision is receiving much attention for its conservative activism, its lack of deference to the elected branches, and its disregard for the rule of law. With the stroke of a pen, five Justices overturned a century of law to permit corporations to overwhelm and distort the democratic process. The five Justices in the activist conservative bloc reached out to grant corporations rights that were once reserved for individual Americans. This divisive decision puts the special interests of big oil, banks and insurance companies ahead of the interests of the American people.

I believe that corporations are not the same as individual Americans. This is certainly true in the context of the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Corporations do not have the same rights, the same morals, the same ideals. Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. Corporations do not have the same motivations and interests as individual Americans. This is common sense. Contrary to the preferences of the five Justices who decided the Citizens United case, corporations were not part of the ``People'' who sought to establish a more perfect Union through the ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

I have heard many Republican Senators praise the Citizens United decision as a ringing endorsement for the free speech rights of corporations. Of course, what they fail to mention is that this decision does not just put the rights of corporations on equal footing with individual Americans. The moneyed corporations that can now dominate the airwaves and election discourse will prevent a multitude of individual voices from being heard. The biggest corporations can be the loudest and most dominant. What the Republican supporters of the Citizens United decision do not say is that these new rights for corporations come at the expense of our democratic principles by allowing corporate funded megaphones that will drown out the unamplified voices of hardworking Americans.

Two weeks ago, Justice Alito shook his head when President Obama warned Americans about the risks of money from foreign corporations flowing into our elections. But the conservative majority in Citizens United did not limit the new ``speech rights'' it granted corporations to purely American corporations. The corporation before the court in Citizens United appears to be domestic, leading some to argue that the precise holding of the case does not apply to foreign corporations. However, the legal rationale articulated by the slim majority will no doubt apply beyond non-profit corporations like Citizens United. For example, many observers have concluded that the decision will apply to labor unions as well, even though no union was before the court in this case. The ambiguity about how this decision could apply to corporations with investors who are not American citizens, or directors who are not American citizens, to subsidiaries of foreign corporations and to multinational corporations threatens to introduce unprecedented foreign influence into our elections.

The court's ruling exacerbates the already existing loophole allowing campaign contributions from American subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Today, an American subsidiary of a multinational corporation is treated as an American corporation under the campaign finance laws. With the newly-expanded ability of corporations to make unlimited independent political expenditures, that right is conferred on U.S. subsidiaries of multinational corporations as well.

How will the Federal Elections Commission be able to police whether the actual source of a campaign contribution comes solely from the domestic entity, and not its foreign affiliations? When a multinational corporation funds a political advertisement, is the FEC expected to audit the foreign and domestic sides of the corporation, to ensure that the source of the contribution came purely from the U.S. subsidiary? How can the FEC ensure that American subsidiaries of foreign corporations do not become a front for foreign interests who want to influence American elections?

The American people do not want the domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to be able to drown out their voices during the upcoming campaign season. Saudi Aramco is estimated to be worth $781 billion dollars. Petro China's estimated net worth is $100 billion, with profits rivaling Exxon Mobil's in the tens of billions each year. Likewise, Venezuelan oil takes in tens of billions a year. The German insurance company, Allianz, is worth $2.5 trillion; ING Group is valued at $2 trillion. HSBC Holdings is valued at almost $2.5 trillion, with annual sales of almost $150 billion. Bank of American itself has sales of over $100 billion a year. The temptation for these powerful corporations to begin exploiting the Citizens United decision will be great. Imagine the influence that a small percentage of these profits could buy to sway elections of legislators considering climate change restrictions or reform of the financial services industry.

I fear that the Supreme Court's decision here has invited foreign influence over our political process. Given the vague legal reasoning and disregard for legal precedent that the majority employed to expand corporate power in this case, it is now even uncertain whether those existing restrictions to prevent wholly foreign corporations from contributing directly to the political process can withstand a constitutional challenge.

The effect of the Court's decision also poses a serious threat to the ability of state and local governments to police their own elections. Twenty-four states currently have laws to restrain corporate spending on elections. All of those laws are now called into question in the wake of the Citizens United decision.

At a Senate Rules Committee hearing last week, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock gave compelling testimony about the threat to Montana's century-old law prohibiting corporations from ``paying or contributing in order to aid, promote or prevent the nomination or election of any person.'' That law was designed to ensure that ``Corporations are represented in Montana campaigns, but on equal terms alongside other political committees, all of them speaking through purely voluntary associations of their money, ideas, and voices.''

Montana's law, like many state and Federal campaign finance laws, is not new. It stemmed from what Attorney General Bullock described as ``the infamous bribery of the Montana Legislature by Senator William A. Clark, which led to its refusal to seat him.'' In 1912, when Montana enacted its law, the ``Copper Kings'' dominated not only elections but all political debate in Montana and so the fed-up citizens of that state responded.

Now, the challenges to state campaign spending laws that are sure to follow Citizens United pose a grave threat to the will of Montana's people, as well as citizens in the 23 other states with laws on the books limiting corporate spending on elections. Attorney General Bullock testified that its elections for state senate cost an average of $17,000. That is an insignificant expense to a large corporation subject to governmental oversight or regulation.

Like Montana, Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine large corporations flooding the airwaves with election ads and drowning out the voices of Vermont's citizens. I know that the people of Vermont, like other Americans, take seriously their responsibility as citizens to choose wisely when making choices on Election Day. Vermonters cherish their critical role in the democratic process and are staunch believers in the First Amendment, refusing to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I fear that is exactly what will happen unless both sides of the aisle join with President Obama to try to restore the ability of every American to be heard and effectively participate in free and fair elections.

In this connection, I urge Republicans to heed the advice of our former colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Warren Rudman. He recalls the time when Republicans were in favor of campaign finance reform, before they flip-flopped on that issue as they have so many now that the American people have elected a Democratic President. I ask that his column from the February 5 Washington Post be included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

It is difficult to understand the Justices' lack of concern in Citizens United for the potential of massive corporate spending to distort elections, especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling issued only months ago in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote that the possibility of bias due to campaign contributions in a state judicial election meant that the judge was wrong not to recuse himself from deciding a case involving a defendant who had spent $3 million supporting his election campaign to the bench. I agreed with that decision. There, Justice Kennedy wrote: ``We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias--based on objective and reasonable perceptions--when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.'' What I do not understand is how these same standards and obvious logic were not applied to corporate spending in election campaigns.

The campaign finance laws passed by Congress, as well as the 24 states that have enacted restrictions, reflect a clear reason for treating individuals and their free speech rights differently from corporations--especially foreign corporations--and their money. These laws were well-founded on principles dating back not just a century to the Tillman laws, but to the distinction dating back to the time of our Nation's founding.

As early as 1819, the great Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that ``A corporation is an artificial being . . . the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. . . .'' That 191-year-old precedent is one of the many betrayed by the five Justice majority in Citizens United when it ignored the nature of corporations as artificial, legally-created constructions and wrongly described them merely as indistinguishable from other ``associations of citizens.'' Corporations are created by governments and given special rights and privileges. They are not people. Describing them as indistinguishable ignores not only the long development of the law but logic and reality.

The threat posed by the Citizens United goes well beyond the specific limitations on corporate spending that were struck down in its decision. The same lawyers who initiated the Citizens United case are already seeking to overturn other limits on election spending and transparency in campaign fundraising. If those lawyers are successful in a case called SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission--a case currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a court like the Supreme Court controlled by Republican- appointed conservative activists--it could gut laws meant to ensure that the public knows who funds political ads. That means unaccountable groups would be free to distort elections with anonymous attack ads, unanswerable to the American people.

I fear that we have not seen the last of the efforts of the newly- constituted Supreme Court to knock down long-established precedents. The Citizens United decision may have a dramatic impact on American democracy, but it is only the latest in a growing set of examples of why every seat on the highest court affects the lives of all Americans.

Mr. President, lucky is the town that has a good civic minded newspaper.

Vermont is fortunate to have several, and two reasons for that are the brothers Emerson and Angelo Lynn. The Lynn brothers have shown how public spirited newspapering is also good business.

A profile of the Lynn brothers in a recent edition of Vermont's Seven Days newspaper, written by Ken Picard, opens with this: ``Newspapermen Emerson and Angelo Lynn learned a long time ago that it's not enough for a community paper to be good. It's also got to do good. And the one that achieves both goals can thrive in its niche--even when larger corporate newspapers are struggling.''

Emerson and Angelo Lynn--with roots in Kansas and newspapering in their heritage--have made their homes in Vermont since the 1980s, and it was the chance to publish newspapers that brought them to our State. Emerson has published the St. Albans Messenger since 1981. Angelo arrived soon after to purchase and publish the Addison County Independent.

The Messenger, the Independent and the other publications they own and manage have flourished under their management. Not only have they invested significant time and energy into the success of their own newspapers; they also generously mentor and support other local publishers.

This is a time of uncertainty and introspection in the Nation's newspaper businesses. Alternate media streams and a severe economic recession have driven down earnings and have driven some papers out of business. New formulas will be tried. But in the meantime, Emerson and Angelo Lynn have shown that the old formula of civic minded journalism can still work.

The Lynn brothers have been successful because they care deeply about where they live, and they invest in their communities in every sense, including their hearts and souls. They

act out of a sense of responsibility to their readers. Their tone is civil and constructive. Mr. Picard quotes veteran Vermont journalist Stephen Kiernan: ``These guys have a real sense of place. They know when a business is doing well; they know when something is changing; they know what's in the wind. A sense of place is essential to any business in Vermont, but it's especially true in the media business.''

These two extraordinary Vermonters continue to give their best, and their businesses have become keystones in the civic infrastructure of Franklin and Addison Counties, and beyond.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article from Seven Days, ``Brothers in Ink,'' by Ken Picard, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to call the Senate's attention to a significant agreement that was signed late last Friday night to preserve the current government in Belfast and continue the long road toward permanent peace in Northern Ireland.

The 12 years since the signing of the Good Friday Peace Accords have not been easy ones for the people of Northern Ireland. The power- sharing government was suspended in 2002, the British resumed direct control, and violence has flared at times. However, all sides have been committed to working towards the blueprint for peace worked out in 1998--the Irish Republican Army formally ended its armed campaign in 2005, the St. Andrews Agreement returned control of the government to Northern Ireland, and all sides have resisted a resurgence of the brutality of the past.

In recent months, disagreements over a variety of issues have threatened to bring down the fragile government again--tensions over British control of prosecutors, the judiciary and the police, and the rights of the Protestant Orange Order to parade through heavily Catholic neighborhoods have prevented both sides from moving forward.

I commend the Northern Irish First Minister Peter Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein who met at Hillsborough Castle near Belfast with Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, and Taoiseach Cowen of the Republic of Ireland, whose leadership has been vital. Friday's agreement set April 12 as the date for the transfer of the Judiciary and Police forces to local control, and laid out a plan and timeline for the resolution of disagreements on parades before ``marching season'' in July of 2011.

Northern Ireland's long peacemaking process has been difficult, demanding painful concessions by both sides. Yet both sides also seem to have reached a point where return to the conditions of the last 40 years is no longer an option. The last few years have seen opportunities for Northern Ireland to return to sectarian strife, and yet both sides, their leaders, and the people of Northern Ireland have looked over the edge and stepped back with the knowledge that no matter how difficult the road forward is, the road back must not be travelled.

I am proud of the critical role the United States has played in the process. Former President Clinton was intimately involved in the Good Friday Agreement, and Secretary of State Clinton deserves a great deal of credit for her part in these talks. All of us in this chamber also are proud of the role that former Senator George Mitchell played at crucial junctures earlier in this long process. I assure the people of Northern Ireland that this Senator--and all Americans of good will-- remains committed to remaining with them every step of the way.

Madam President, today, the Senate will finally have an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor General for the Department of Labor. Earlier this week the Senate voted to invoke cloture and end the 15th filibuster of President Obama's nominations to fill important posts in the executive branch and the judiciary. That number does not include the many others who have been denied up or down votes in the Senate by the anonymous obstruction of Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees.

Every single Republican Senator who voted on Monday voted against cloture and to keep filibustering this well-qualified nominee. Every single Republican voted to obstruct the Senate from doing the business of the American

people. Wasn't it just a few years ago that Republicans were demanding up or down votes for nominees, and contending that filibusters of nominations were unconstitutional? Not a single Republican voted for cloture and to stop the filibuster of this nomination.

The obstruction and delay does not stop there. Since 60 Members of the Senate voted to invoke cloture and bring the debate to a close, Republican Senators have insisted on delaying the vote for several additional days. This afternoon, that up-or-down vote finally takes place.

After the Senate is finally able to consider the Smith nomination, we will then have the opportunity to end the filibuster of another nomination, that of Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, GSA. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar since June 8 due to the opposition of a single Republican Senator over a dispute with GSA about plans for a Federal building in his home State. The will of the Senate and the needs of the American people are held hostage by a single Senator.

Overall, as of this morning, there were more than 75 judicial and executive nominees pending on the Senate Executive calendar, many being held up for purely political purposes.

Yesterday, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issue retreat, I asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to the Senate as quickly as possible and to commit to work with us, both Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far since taking office, the President has reached across the aisle working with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations. Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President responded by stating:

Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it's not just

judges, unfortunately, Pat, it's also all our federal

appointees. We've got a huge backlog of folks who are

unanimously viewed as well qualified; nobody has a specific

objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because

of some completely unrelated piece of business.

On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of

Indiana, Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--

Evan Bayh, Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended.

How long did it take us? Six months, six, seven months for

somebody who was supported by the Democratic and Republican

senator from that state. And you can multiply that across the

board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that this is

not how we should be doing business.

* * * * *

Let's have a fight about real stuff. Don't hold this woman

hostage. If you have an objection about my health care

policies, then let's debate the health care policies. But

don't suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck

in limbo somewhere because you don't like something else that

we're doing, because that doesn't serve the American people.

I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the way the Senate acts. Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated use of filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the new norm for the Republicans in the Senate. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.

The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill vacancies on the Federal courts, is having a debilitating effect. Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session. The Senate could have considered and confirmed another 10 judicial nominees that had all been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed all last year, less than half of what we achieved during the second half of President Bush's first tumultuous year.

We have confirmed only two more judicial nominees so far this year. Republicans have objected to consideration of the nomination of Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, a nomination reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee last October. His would be the next judicial nomination to consider and confirm, but Senate Republicans object.

Even after years of Republican pocket filibusters that blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, Democrats did not practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President Bush's nominations. We worked hard to reverse the Republican obstructionism. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 31 circuit and district court nominations compared to only 14 during President Obama's first two years. In the second year of President Bush's first term, the Democratic majority proceeded to confirm 72 judicial nominations, and helped reduce the vacancies left by Republican obstructionism from over 110 to 59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.

We continued to be fair and continued working to reduce judicial vacancies even during President Bush's last year in office. With Democrats again in the majority, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in nine of the 13 Federal circuits.

The Republican Senate minority has resumed its strategy to put partisan politics ahead of the needs of the American people for courts that can provide justice. Last year was worse than the 1996 session when they allowed confirmation of only 17 judicial nominees. The years of demands from Republican Senators for up-or-down votes for every nominee apparently only applied to those nominated by a Republican president.

As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked again as they did due to Republican obstruction in the 1990s, and are again being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges. The rule of law demands more. The American people deserve better.

Among the nominees ready for Senate approval are nine Federal judicial nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two would fill vacancies on the Third Circuit, three would fill vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, and there are nominees to fill vacancies on the First, Second and Sixth Circuits, as well as a district court nominee to Wisconsin. The delay in considering them is also part of this effort to delay and obstruct. Judge Greenaway, about whom Senators Lautenberg and Menendez spoke again this week, was reported by unanimous consent back in October, four months ago. Nobody has come forward to explain why his nomination is being stalled. He is a good judge. Senator Sessions praised him at his confirmation hearing. Judge Greenaway is one

of the many outstanding judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee that remain stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. They should have been confirmed last year and would have but for Republican objection. When considered, they will be confirmed but not before being needlessly delayed for months.

They insisted on debate on the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90 votes. Republicans insisted on hours of debate for the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November, having delayed its consideration for months. For at least 2 additional months, Judge Beverly Martin's nomination was stalled because Republicans would not agree to consider it before January 20. Judge Martin had the strong support of both of her home State Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, and the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Still, Republicans delayed her consideration.

None of the nine Federal circuit and district court nominations pending as of this morning on the Senate Executive Calendar should be controversial. Six were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. One had 1 negative vote, one had 3 negatives votes and the nominee from Tennessee supported by Senator Alexander had 4 negatives votes but 15 in favor, including three Republicans. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who are then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were finally allowed to be considered. That obstruction and delay continues.

The American people deserve better. The cost will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. President Obama has reached across the aisle and worked with Republican Senators, including Senators Lugar, Martinez, Shelby, Sessions, Thune, Alexander, Burr, Chambliss and Isakson. I wish Senator Republicans and the Senate Republican leadership would reconsider their tactics of obstruction and delay and work with us and with the President.

The Republican minority must believe that this partisan playbook of obstruction will reap political benefit for them and damage to the President. But the people who pay the price for this political calculation are the American people who depend on the government being able to do its job. I hope that Republican Senators will rethink their political strategy and return to the Senate's tradition of promptly considering noncontroversial nominations so that we can work together to regain the trust of the American people.

If my two friends will yield on that point, it has gone way beyond anything I have seen in my 35 years in the Senate, by either Democrats or Republicans. It is ridiculous.

I will give one example--not my committee, but I mentioned it the other day. During the height of the H1N1 flu, every morning you could pick up the

paper or hear of children--little children--dying while there was an anonymous hold by the Republicans on the Surgeon General. You would think, particularly at a time such as that, you would want to have everybody you could have there. This was blocked for months and months and months. Finally, the hold was lifted and she was confirmed unanimously.

We have had judges supported by both parties, and the nominations have come out of the committee. The distinguished deputy majority leader is a member of the committee, and he knows they have come out unanimously. Yet they are held up for months. We finally vote cloture, waste 3 days of the public's time--at a cost of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars--only to then have a vote and it be virtually unanimous.

I mean, this is being childish. It goes beyond misusing a parliamentary procedure. It becomes childish.

I thank my two colleagues for letting me speak to this.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Wyoming on the floor, and he has been recognized, but I ask unanimous consent that when he finishes, I be recognized for 10 minutes to speak about Vermonters who have been in Haiti helping with the devastation.

Mr. President, on January 22 I spoke in this Chamber about the earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12 and the unprecedented devastation it caused. We now know that an estimated 3 million people have been affected, including some 700,000 people displaced from Port- au-Prince and living under plastic or other makeshift shelter. As many as 200,000 more may have died; tens of thousands have suffered injuries, including many whose limbs had to be amputated, some as the only way to save their lives and to extricate them from the rubble. Hundreds of thousands of children have lost one or both of their parents. It is hard to quantify the scale of human suffering.

Think of it. Thousands of commercial buildings, 200,000 homes, the presidential palace, the national cathedral as well as the parliament building, the government ministries, U.N. headquarters were either heavily damaged or destroyed. Roads, ports, and communication infrastructure were extensively damaged.

Ninety percent of the schools in Port-au-Prince have been destroyed. This rebuilding is going to take years, even with the help of the international community, the United States, working side-by-side with the people of Haiti.

The generosity of the American people as well as people from so many other countries has been extraordinary. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised from private organizations, foundations, corporations, and individuals, including schoolchildren. There have been countless tons of donations of food, clothing, medicines, and other supplies. It is especially heartening to see the commitment and dedication of volunteers, many of whom after they received word of the earthquake immediately began to pack their bags to travel to Haiti to help any way they could--not sure of where they would stay but knowing they had skills that were needed.

One such group is the Vermont Haiti Relief Team. It includes members of the Vermont Haiti Project and the Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals. They traveled to Haiti. I talked with some of them who helped with the recovery, I heard and read their stories, I have seen the photographs they sent back. Here is one photograph--the nurses are carrying, obviously, a patient on a stretcher.

As a Vermonter, as an American, I could not be more proud of the lifesaving work they are doing. Our little State of Vermont, as far north from Haiti as it could be--right up there on the Canadian border--answered the call to help a neighbor in the hemisphere.

On January 20, 11 volunteer doctors, nurses, and other health professionals from Vermont arrived in Jimani, Dominican Republic. That is a remote border town where some of the injured from Haiti were taken immediately after the earthquake and where many more have arrived.

The Vermont health workers joined other doctors and nurses to care for hundreds of patients in the hospital. They coordinated helicopter and ambulance transports, they established clinics to evaluate and treat injuries. They cared for over 250 amputees. They worked tirelessly to meet the needs of the victims and their families.

What they did helped immeasurably. I look at this one photograph--at one of the nurses helping this child. Some couldn't speak the language. None of them knew the people before they went there. All they knew was that the Haitians are fellow human beings, suffering, and they felt, as we do in Vermont and in so many other places: If your neighbor is hurting, you are hurting, and so you help your neighbor. They went and helped.

It is life-saving work. But it is also life-changing work. These Vermonters will return home having endured, improvised, and made a difference through the experience of a lifetime. How many of us can say we have done something that made such a difference in someone's life? They have, but their own lives have also been changed.

They were confronted with hundreds of injured people. They had just a handful of medical personnel, no supplies, and they worked around the clock with volunteers from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and many other countries. Sometimes the electricity worked, sometimes it did not. Death surrounded them. But many of those who would have died survived because of the care of these Vermonters.

The team also traveled to Fond Parisien, Haiti, where a clinic was established. They worked with Haitians and other relief organizations to create a wound clinic, and a hospital for hundreds of displaced persons.

After 2 weeks working in difficult conditions, the first team of Vermonters is coming home. They are exhausted physically and emotionally, but they are proud of the help they provided to their Haitian patients and of being able to represent Vermont in the relief effort. This Vermonter is proud of them and proud of a second team that has now arrived in Haiti and has begun working.

The Vermont Haiti Relief Team hopes to continue to send volunteers for 2-week rotations to support the hospital in Jimani and the clinic in Fond Parisien for the next 3 to 6 months.

I have been to Haiti. I know what a poor country it is. My wife Marcelle is a registered nurse, now retired. She has gone to those hospitals. She has seen how little there is to work with. She knows that somebody coming with the equipment that's needed, the supplies that were lacking, what a difference that makes.

Marcelle and I are very impressed with the commitment of those Vermont volunteers. It is emotionally and physically exhausting, but no less rewarding. I thank them for their hard work and dedication, for their selfless example.

What happened in Haiti was as great a natural disaster as any one of us will ever hear of. But what it has done is spark the generosity of people everywhere. The help has to continue. I will make sure of that as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

Thanks to this small group of Vermonters who went down there, lives were saved, lives were changed, children were rescued. We Vermonters are proud.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson occur at 2:45 p.m., with the time until then divided equally; with the provisions of the order governing this nomination remaining in effect.

I ask further unanimous consent that upon disposition of the nomination of Martha Johnson, and the Senate resuming legislative session, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes, except when Senator Kirk is recognized, he be recognized for 20 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be divided equally.

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

Madam President, in order to vote on the nomination of Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, the Senate was required to overcome the 15th filibuster of President Obama's nominations to fill important posts in the executive branch and the judiciary. That number does not include the many others who have been denied up-or-down votes in the Senate by the anonymous obstruction of Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees. There have been as many filibusters of nominations as there have been confirmations of Federal judges in President Obama's first 2 years in office.

This 15th filibuster is three times as many as there were in the entire first 2 years of the Bush administration. Was it not just a few years ago that Republicans were demanding up-or-down votes for nominees, and contending that filibusters of nominations were unconstitutional? Again, the 15 filibusters of nominations matches the total number of Federal judges confirmed in President Obama's first 2 years in office.

In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 31 circuit and district court nominations, compared to only 14 during President Obama's first 2 years. In the second year of President Bush's first term, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 judicial nominations, and helped reduce the vacancies left by Republican obstructionism from over 110 to 59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.

The obstruction and delay does not only affect judicial nominees and our Federal courts. Martha Johnson is the second executive branch nominee this week that has been filibustered by Republicans. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar since June 8 due to the opposition of a single Republican Senator over a dispute with GSA about plans for a Federal building in his home State. The will of the Senate and the needs of the American people are held hostage by a single Senator.

Overall, as of this morning, there were more than 75 judicial and executive nominees pending on the Senate Executive calendar.

Yesterday, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issue retreat, I asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to the Senate as quickly as possible and to commit to work with us, both Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far since taking office, the President has reached across the aisle working with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations. Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President responded by stating:

Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it's not just

judges, unfortunately, Pat, it's also all our federal

appointees. We've got a huge backlog of folks who are

unanimously viewed as well qualified; nobody has a specific

objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because

of some completely unrelated piece of business.

On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of

Indiana, Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--

Evan Bayh, Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended.

How long did it take us? Six months, six, seven months for

somebody who was supported by the Democratic and Republican

senator from that state. And you can multiply that across the

board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that this is

not how we should be doing business.

Let's have a fight about real stuff. Don't hold this woman

hostage. If you have an objection about my health care

policies, then let's debate the health care policies. But

don't suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck

in limbo somewhere because you don't like something else that

we're doing, because that doesn't serve the American people.

I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the way the Senate acts. Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated use of filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the new norm for the Republican in the Senate. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.

The Republican minority must believe that this partisan playbook of obstruction will reap political benefit for them and damage to the President. But the people who pay the price for this political calculation are the American people who depend on the government being able to do its job. I hope that Republican Senators will rethink their political strategy and return to the Senate's tradition of promptly considering noncontroversial nominations so that we can work together to regain the trust of the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Freya von Moltke, an extraordinary woman and long-time resident of Norwich, VT, who passed away this January 1 at the age of 98.

In 1929, at the age of 18, Freya met the young lawyer Helmuth von Moltke, and 2 years later she married him. Freya earned her own law degree in 1935 but never practiced; law had already begun to lose its meaning as Hitler and the Nazi party tightened their grip on power. It was for the same reason that Helmuth gave up his dreams of becoming a judge and of working closer to the family estate in Kreisau, in Silesia, now a part of Poland. Instead, he opened a small law office in Berlin, where he could remain independent of the regime without drawing attention to himself. He and Freya divided their time between the family estate and his apartment in Berlin.

In the last years before the war, they traveled to South Africa to visit Helmuth's mother's parents in South Africa. On those trips they spoke openly of what the Nazi regime was capable of, and were constantly urged not to return to Germany. But they felt responsible, for their broader family, the estate, and Germany's fate; they felt they had no choice but to return. Helmuth's work as an attorney came to an end at the outbreak of the war in 1939, when he was drafted into the German army's intelligence service. Freya settled into overseeing the farm in Kreisau in his absence, and the flood of letters between them began. Helmuth came home whenever he could. They welcomed their first son Helmuth Caspar, in 1937 and their second, Konrad, in 1941.

It was clear to the von Moltkes from the beginning that the Nazi regime was criminal, but moving from opposition to active resistance was a giant step. When Helmuth told Freya that he knew he had to do what he could to resist, she gave him her complete support. Slowly Helmuth gathered a loose group of friends and friends of friends, people who could be trusted, people who represented almost every class and interest group outside the Nazi party. He spent his evenings in Berlin meeting with them in small groups, discussing what would eventually have to be done to undo the damage to Germany by the Nazis. Only on a few memorable occasions did they all dare to meet together; Freya and Helmuth invited the whole group to gather for seemingly innocent weekends in Kreisau. There they were able to hammer out together their plans for the longed-for day when the Nazi regime would finally fall--their plans for a new Germany, a democratic Germany embedded in a renewed and democratic Europe. Freya not only participated in the discussions; she also took care of everyone's room and board.

Early in 1944, Helmuth was imprisoned for warning an acquaintance of his imminent arrest. In July of that year, many of his friends participated in an attempt to assassinate Hitler. It failed, and many of them lost their lives immediately. In the aftermath, the Gestapo began to uncover the connections leading from one resistance group to another, including the one they called the ``Kreisau Circle.'' Most of the surviving members of the group soon joined Helmuth in prison. Most were tried before the infamous People's Court, convicted, and sentenced to death. Helmuth himself was executed in January of 1945.

Between her trips to Berlin to make appeals for Helmuth's life, Freya took in a growing group of their friends' widows and children at Kreisau. In the face of the Soviet advance, she moved them all into nearby Czechoslovakia, only to find that it was safer to move them home again. Through the intervention of British friends, she and her children at last managed to leave Kreisau for Berlin, but they soon left Germany for South Africa, where Freya made her living as a social worker.

In 1956, unable to tolerate apartheid any longer, Freya returned to Germany. In Berlin she began her work to keep the memory of the German resistance to Hitler alive; she also began to transcribe Helmuth's letters, which, along with the minutes of the Kreisau Circle's meetings, she had hidden from the Gestapo in the beehives on the estate. She published Helmuth's final letters from prison very soon after the end of the war. In 1988, many of the thousands of letters he had written her between the summer of 1939 and his death appeared in Englishas ``Letters to Freya.''

It was in September of 1960 that Freya moved to Norwich, VT. She moved to Norwich to join her close friend--and her husband's--Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, whose wife had died the year before. Freya lived with him until his death in 1973, and after his death she founded a nonprofit to keep his books in print; she was president of that group until the 1990s, by which time they had over 60 titles in print. Freya served for years on the board of the Co-op supermarket in Hanover, NH, and with friends from the Co-op board she went on to found the Twin Pines Cooperative Housing Foundation, the first group to try to develop affordable housing in that part of Vermont and the first in the State to establish a tenant-owned housing cooperative.

At 75, after many years in Norwich, Freya became an American citizen and an active member of the League of Women Voters. At 93 she agreed to speak in Berlin on the 60th anniversary of the failed assassination attempt, but for many years she had spoken in Vermont high schools about what she and her husband and their friends had done and the need for courage in the face of injustice in any society. Students from one school she visited for years sent flowers to her funeral.

It is no simple feat for a foreigner to become accepted as a ``natural'' part of a small town in northern New England, but Freya did it. In 1985, the owner of Dan & Whit's general store in Norwich ran into her in the post office. He reacted to the flood of unfamiliar faces by telling her, ``Let them come. We were here first.'' His gallant inclusion of her as a ``native'' after only 25 years in town moved Freya deeply. Her own hospitality is reflected in the sign she tacked to her unlocked kitchen door at the age of 90: ``To Everybody! Please, walk in! Push hard. Find me upstairs if I don't respond.''

Freya was firm in her belief that the territory Germany had lost, the land her family had lost, was the price Germany had to pay for the crimes of the Nazi regime. But she had hopes for what had been the family estate. In 1988, a group of young people in East Germany had the idea of making the former von Moltke estate a place where people from divided Europe could meet and get to know each other; they found friends in Poland, but also in West Germany, in Holland and the United States. Only a year later, a friend of their Polish friends became the prime minister of Poland and invited the chancellor of Germany to meet him for a mass of reconciliation in Kreisau. The two men agreed to fund the restoration of Kreisau, now called Kryzowa. The German chancellor had invited Freya to accompany him, but she said she would wait until the Poles invited her, which they soon did. In her final years, she lent her name and her blessing to a foundation to support the new Kreisau, which with support from the German and Polish governments has grown in 20 years from the dream of a few young people to an international meeting place that hosts about 100 events a year, attended by some 10,000 young people from all over Europe.

Freya von Moltke was an inspiration to all who knew her. She was a wonderful friend and neighbor, and she enriched the lives of countless citizens of

our State. She lived a long and fruitful life; she will be missed by admirers around the world, but most of all by the Vermonters who knew and loved her.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prohibiting Certain High-Risk Investment Activities by Banks and Bank Holding Companies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010 in room S-216 of the Capitol.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Comcast/NBC Universal Merger: What Does the Future Hold for Competition and Consumers?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2010, at 3 p.m., to hold an International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Haiti Reconstruction: Smart Planning Moving Forward.''

Mr. President, over the past year, President Obama has been working hard to restore America's credibility in the world and our reputation for justice and our commitment to the rule of law. A key component of that important mission is ensuring accountability for American contractors and employees overseas. Accountability is crucial, not just for our image abroad and our diplomatic relations, but for ensuring our national security.

To restore accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American government employees and contractors wherever they act. Today, I join with Senator Kaufman to introduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA, to accomplish this important and common sense goal.

Tragic events in Iraq in 2007 made clear the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing an international incident with the Iraqi government.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, conducted a full-scale criminal investigation of the Blackwater shootings, and prosecutors brought indictments against five contractors. Last month, a Federal district judge dismissed all the charges because of an order from the past administration immunizing Blackwater contractors under Iraqi law and immunity commitments by the prior administration to obtain the testimony of some. Although the Justice Department is expected to appeal the dismissals, this could mean that those who perpetrated this act will not be held accountable. I believe that, had jurisdiction for these offenses been clear, FBI agents would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented the problems that have plagued the case.

Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident of contractor misconduct, and accountability for U.S. Government contractors and employees is essential. Private security contractors have been involved in violent

incidents in Iraq, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. In these cases too, there have not been prosecutions.

Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and denied even access to a phone.

Only after pleading with her captors was she eventually given use of a phone. She called her father, who contacted her Congressman, who in turn contacted the State Department. State Department officials were able to free her. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Today we seek to fix the outdated criminal laws that have also contributed to the failure to bring those who perpetrated this heinous crime to justice.

Unfortunately, many other women have encountered similar abuse and have similarly seen their attackers escape any accountability. Also last year, we learned that contractors hired to secure the American Embassy in Afghanistan engaged in various forms of outrageous conduct but there, too, there have been no prosecutions. It is time to correct this injustice.

I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then again to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany the military, and to all contractors who support the Defense Department mission overseas. We wanted to make sure that all contractors working alongside the U.S. military or protecting U.S. interests overseas were held to the same standard that they would be at home. We pay these contractors with taxpayers' money, they represent the U.S. overseas, and they should be held to the same standards as our military.

In 2007, I worked with then-Senator Obama and with Senators Sessions and Specter on further legislation which would have amended MEJA to make sure that all security contractors, not just those supporting the Defense Department, are accountable under U.S. law.

Today, we introduce a bill that would finally address this issue in a comprehensive way, establishing clearly that all U.S. Government employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be charged and tried in the United States under U.S. law. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and numerous other Government agencies have employees, and in recent years, more and more private contractors, working abroad. There must be accountability for all of these people who represent our Government overseas. In those instances where the local justice system may be less fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the U.S., rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts.

Not only will this bill help to provide justice in cases where there has been none, it will improve our national security by allowing prosecution of those who undermine our efforts to create stability and improve foreign relations. By ensuring accountability in cases of wrongdoing against citizens of the host country, as in the Blackwater case, we will increase international trust and cooperation, including from those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts. The current lack of accountability reduces international confidence in our military and our Government, which undermines our national defense. Moreover, the talented men and women we need to advance our national security efforts will be more likely to step forward and serve if we stamp out the lawless atmosphere in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation we introduce today would further increase accountability by providing additional resources and creating new units to investigate wrongdoing by contractors and employees abroad and by calling on the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Inspector General to report to Congress on investigations under this bill.

In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope it will be again. Senator Kaufman and I are willing to work to address any concerns with this legislation and to ensure that it promises justice in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, our national security. Congressman Price is introducing a companion bill in the House. I hope that we will be able to rapidly pass this important reform into law.

As we seek to restore our Nation's historic role as one of responsible leadership in the world, we must ensure that the values that brought us to that leadership are firmly in place. One of those great American values is the rule of law. No one should be above the law, certainly not American employees and contractors representing this great nation throughout the world. This common sense bill would promote the rule of law throughout the world and make us stronger in the process. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join us.

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

Mr. President, over the past year, President Obama has been working hard to restore America's credibility in the world and our reputation for justice and our commitment to the rule of law. A key component of that important mission is ensuring accountability for American contractors and employees overseas. Accountability is crucial, not just for our image abroad and our diplomatic relations, but for ensuring our national security.

To restore accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American government employees and contractors wherever they act. Today, I join with Senator Kaufman to introduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA, to accomplish this important and common sense goal.

Tragic events in Iraq in 2007 made clear the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing an international incident with the Iraqi government.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, conducted a full-scale criminal investigation of the Blackwater shootings, and prosecutors brought indictments against five contractors. Last month, a Federal district judge dismissed all the charges because of an order from the past administration immunizing Blackwater contractors under Iraqi law and immunity commitments by the prior administration to obtain the testimony of some. Although the Justice Department is expected to appeal the dismissals, this could mean that those who perpetrated this act will not be held accountable. I believe that, had jurisdiction for these offenses been clear, FBI agents would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented the problems that have plagued the case.

Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident of contractor misconduct, and accountability for U.S. Government contractors and employees is essential. Private security contractors have been involved in violent

incidents in Iraq, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. In these cases too, there have not been prosecutions.

Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and denied even access to a phone.

Only after pleading with her captors was she eventually given use of a phone. She called her father, who contacted her Congressman, who in turn contacted the State Department. State Department officials were able to free her. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Today we seek to fix the outdated criminal laws that have also contributed to the failure to bring those who perpetrated this heinous crime to justice.

Unfortunately, many other women have encountered similar abuse and have similarly seen their attackers escape any accountability. Also last year, we learned that contractors hired to secure the American Embassy in Afghanistan engaged in various forms of outrageous conduct but there, too, there have been no prosecutions. It is time to correct this injustice.

I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then again to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany the military, and to all contractors who support the Defense Department mission overseas. We wanted to make sure that all contractors working alongside the U.S. military or protecting U.S. interests overseas were held to the same standard that they would be at home. We pay these contractors with taxpayers' money, they represent the U.S. overseas, and they should be held to the same standards as our military.

In 2007, I worked with then-Senator Obama and with Senators Sessions and Specter on further legislation which would have amended MEJA to make sure that all security contractors, not just those supporting the Defense Department, are accountable under U.S. law.

Today, we introduce a bill that would finally address this issue in a comprehensive way, establishing clearly that all U.S. Government employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be charged and tried in the United States under U.S. law. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and numerous other Government agencies have employees, and in recent years, more and more private contractors, working abroad. There must be accountability for all of these people who represent our Government overseas. In those instances where the local justice system may be less fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the U.S., rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts.

Not only will this bill help to provide justice in cases where there has been none, it will improve our national security by allowing prosecution of those who undermine our efforts to create stability and improve foreign relations. By ensuring accountability in cases of wrongdoing against citizens of the host country, as in the Blackwater case, we will increase international trust and cooperation, including from those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts. The current lack of accountability reduces international confidence in our military and our Government, which undermines our national defense. Moreover, the talented men and women we need to advance our national security efforts will be more likely to step forward and serve if we stamp out the lawless atmosphere in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation we introduce today would further increase accountability by providing additional resources and creating new units to investigate wrongdoing by contractors and employees abroad and by calling on the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Inspector General to report to Congress on investigations under this bill.

In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope it will be again. Senator Kaufman and I are willing to work to address any concerns with this legislation and to ensure that it promises justice in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, our national security. Congressman Price is introducing a companion bill in the House. I hope that we will be able to rapidly pass this important reform into law.

As we seek to restore our Nation's historic role as one of responsible leadership in the world, we must ensure that the values that brought us to that leadership are firmly in place. One of those great American values is the rule of law. No one should be above the law, certainly not American employees and contractors representing this great nation throughout the world. This common sense bill would promote the rule of law throughout the world and make us stronger in the process. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join us.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will try to end yet another Republican filibuster and invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor General for the Department of Labor. This is the 15th filibuster against President Obama's nominees.

Commissioner Smith is a well-qualified nominee who has decades of experience working on labor issues, and a strong record as labor commissioner for the State of New York. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on her nomination in May and reported it favorably to the Senate last October. Commissioner Smith should have been confirmed long ago. However, as has become all too common in this Congress, the Republican minority continues to block the Senate from even considering her nomination and giving her the up or down vote they not long ago insisted was the constitutional right of every nominee. Instead, the Senate is faced with another Republican filibuster.

Nothing I have seen suggests there is a reason to block Commissioner Smith's nomination from receiving Senate consideration. If some Senators oppose the strong enforcement of laws to protect American workers, they can vote against the nomination.

Some seek to justify this delay by creating controversy over ``Wage

Watch,'' a pilot program started by the New York Department of Labor under Commissioner Smith designed to encourage Department employees to report labor law violations. This seems to be a controversy generated by those who disagree with the program. What is so troubling about this filibuster is how difficult it has become to determine which nominations Senate Republicans are merely blocking as part of their political strategy of obstruction and delay of President Obama's nominees.

If cloture is invoked and we are finally able to consider the Smith nomination, we will then have the opportunity to end the filibuster of another nomination, that of Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, GSA. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar since June 8 due to the opposition of a single Republican Senator over a dispute with GSA about plans for a Federal building in his home State. The will of the Senate and the needs of the American people are held hostage by a single Senator.

This should not be the way the Senate acts. Last week in his State of the Union Message, President Obama told Congress and the American people: ``The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.''

Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated use of filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the new norm for the Republican minority. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.

The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill vacancies on the Federal courts, has had a devastating effect. As a result of this Republican strategy, there are currently 75 nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for important positions throughout the executive branch and the judiciary, all but nine of them pending since last year.

There are 19 judicial and executive nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar that were reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of them reported with bipartisan support. In fact, 16 of the nominations reported by the committee were reported without a single dissenting vote. These nominations are not controversial. They should be easy to consider and confirm.

Five more nominations reported by the committee were pending on the Senate Executive Calendar at the end of last year, but Republicans insisted that they be returned to the President rather than held in place. Two were judicial nominees and three were nominees to head divisions at the Justice Department as Assistant Attorneys General. One of those nominations had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote, with no dissent.

Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session.

Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed all last year, less than half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. We have confirmed only two more this year, after Republicans objected to consideration of the nomination of Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, a nomination reported by the committee last October 1 by unanimous consent.

Democrats did not practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President Bush's nominations. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 30 circuit and district court nominations compared to only 14 for President Obama. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.

During President Bush's last year in office, with Democrats again in the majority, we had reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in nine of the 13 Federal circuits.

As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked and are being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges. The rule of law demands more. The American people deserve better.

Among the nominees ready for Senate approval are nine Federal judicial nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two would fill vacancies on the Third Circuit, three would fill vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, and there are nominees to fill vacancies on the First, Second and Sixth Circuits, as well as a district court nominee to Wisconsin. The delay in considering them is also part of this effort to delay and obstruct. Judge Greenaway, about whom Senators Lautenberg and Menendez spoke last week, was reported by unanimous consent back in October, four months ago.

Two weeks ago the Majority Leader tried to get agreement to take up the nomination of Judge Greenaway, the next judicial nominee on the Senate Executive Calendar, but Republican objections continue to stall consideration. That is a shame. He is a good judge. Senator Sessions praised him at his confirmation hearing. Why he is being stalled I do not know, and no one has explained. Even after the statements by the New Jersey Senators, no one has come forward to explain the hold up from the Republican leadership. Judge Greenaway is one of the many outstanding judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee that remain stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. They should have been confirmed last year and would have but for Republican objection. When considered, they will be confirmed but not before being needlessly delayed for months.

They insisted on debate on the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90 votes. Republicans insisted on hours of debate for the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November, having delayed its consideration for months. For at least 2 additional months, Judge Beverly Martin's nomination was stalled because Republicans would not agree to consider it before January 20. Judge Martin, of course, had the strong support of both of her home state Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, and the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

The Democratic leadership sought to build on our belated progress two weeks ago when we were allowed finally to consider and confirm Judge

Martin. We asked for agreement to consider the nomination of Judge Greenaway. As the Majority Leader indicated two weeks ago: ``[The Democratic] majority was in a position to agree to a vote on the nomination of Joseph Greenaway to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. However, I was advised the Republicans would not agree to such request.'' This is Congressional Record S166, January 22, 2010, daily ed. Again, Senate Republicans have withheld consent and have objected to consideration of a nominee.

None of the nine Federal circuit and district court nominations currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar should be controversial. Six were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. One had one negative vote, one had three negatives votes and the nominee from Tennessee supported by Senator Alexander had 4 negatives votes but 15 in favor, including 3 Republicans. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who are then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were finally allowed to be considered. That obstruction and delay continues.

The American people deserve better. The cost will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts. President Obama has reached across the aisle and worked with Republican Senators, including Senators Lugar, Martinez, Shelby, Sessions, Thune, Alexander, Burr, Chambliss and Isakson, who all have supported his judicial nominees. I wish Senator Republicans and the Senate Republican leadership would reconsider their tactics of obstruction and delay and work with us and with the President.

The Republican minority must believe that this partisan playbook of obstruction will reap political benefit for them and damage to the President. But the people who pay the price for this political calculation are the American people who depend on the government being able to do its job. I hope that Republican Senators will rethink their political strategy and return to the Senate's tradition of promptly considering noncontroversial nominations.

During his State of the Union Address last Tuesday night, President Obama talked with us about the ``deficit of trust--deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.'' He urged that we show the American people that we can work together. Regrettably the Senate is being required to dedicate today and tomorrow to freeing one of the long-delayed nominations the President has sent to the Senate for advice and consent. This is not working together. This is yet another instance in which Senate Republicans have decided to delay and obstruct.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada, the majority leader. Before I speak, I see the distinguished Republican leader. I will reserve my time and allow him to speak, of course.

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I hope the American people watched and heard President Obama's speech last night and were reassured. I know I was. There are so many things that he covered, I will not try to repeat all of them. I would like to expand on one of the very important matters he raised. On this, I will wear my hat as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision threatens to allow corporations to drown out the individual voices of hard-working Americans in our elections. By overturning years of work in Congress, years of work by both Republicans and Democrats alike--campaign finance laws, and by reversing a century of its own precedent, the conservative, activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections. The Citizens United decision turns the idea of government of, by, and for the people on its head. It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

Congress, on behalf of the American people, struggled for years to enact campaign finance reform. Virtually every American wanted campaign finance reform. We finally did that in a bipartisan way in the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold Act overcoming a filibuster and passing it with a bipartisan supermajority. This milestone campaign finance reform strengthened the laws, protecting the interests of all Americans by ensuring a fair electoral process. It was a matter of serious consideration by Congress, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In the 2003 case McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the McCain- Feingold Act against a First Amendment challenge. That was consistent with 100 years of judicial precedent and law, including a longstanding criminal law prohibiting corporations from contributing to Federal election campaigns. We have long prevented corporate contributions to Federal campaigns, at least since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt. The prohibitions included in the Tillman Act were signed into law in 1907.

Now only 6 years after upholding 100 years of precedent, resolving the question in McConnell, and after a number of other Supreme Court opinions upholding these campaign regulations as needed to ensure fairness in elections, a thin majority of the Supreme Court, made possible by President Bush's appointment of Justice Alito, has thrown out important parts of the law, and they have run roughshod over a long line of longstanding Court precedent. This is a threat to the rule of law. It overrules congressional efforts to keep powerful, monied interests from swamping individual voices and interests. This decision puts the special interests of big oil, banks and insurance companies ahead of the interests of the American people, and it risks corrupting our political process. It shows no deference to Congress and no respect for the rule of law as reflected in

the precedents of the Supreme Court. I agree with Justice Stevens, who wrote in his extraordinary dissent in Citizens United:

[T]he 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.

At his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito, under oath, testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly but also has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over the bounds and invading the authority of Congress. That was then when he was seeking confirmation. This is now. As Justice Stevens' dissent makes clear, the narrow majority of the Justices, including Justice Alito, substituted their own preferences for those of the duly-elected Congress, despite 100 years of the Supreme Court's own precedents.

This is the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. That decision by the activist conservative bloc on the Supreme Court intervened in a presidential election. This decision is broader and more damaging in that they have now decided to intervene in all elections. Just as in Bush v. Gore, last week, the conservative activists currently on the Supreme Court unnecessarily went beyond the proper judicial role to substitute their preferences for the law. Last week's decision is only the latest example--yet perhaps the most extreme--of the willingness of a narrow majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to suit their own ideological agenda.

I believe that the activist conservatives now on the Supreme Court got this decision dramatically wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation and also common sense. Corporations are not the same as individual American men and women. They do not have the same rights, the same morals, the same ideals. They do not vote. They do not have the same role in our election as individual citizens. When the Supreme Court made its landmark decision to ensure election fairness through the constitutional protection of the principle of one-person-one-vote, it did the right thing. Last week, the conservative bloc undermined that core constitutional principle by imposing its view that moneyed corporations should dominate the airwaves and election discourse. Rather than abiding by the limitations that Congress has developed to ensure a multitude of voices in the marketplace of election contests, they decided that the biggest corporations should be unleashed so that they can be the loudest and most dominant at the expense of our democratic principles.

At the core of the first amendment is the right of individual Americans--individual men and women--to participate in the political process, to speak and, crucially, to be heard. That is what the campaign finance laws were designed to ensure; that American men and women could be heard and fairly participate in elections. This right is fundamental to the legitimacy of our democracy--to our ability to govern ourselves because it is the foundation of our other rights.

Last week's decision puts these inalienable rights at risk by ignoring not only the extensive findings of Congress in passing the law but also logic and reality. The loud megaphones that can be bought by corporate money can drown out the unamplified voices of individual Americans. This is true even in an age when the Internet has vastly expanded avenues for citizens to speak to each other. The campaign finance laws passed by Congress reflected clear reasons for treating individuals and their free speech rights differently from corporations and their money. We have done so for at least 100 years. We sought additional reforms after the corruption of Watergate, and again at the turn of this new century. Those reforms and reasonable regulation are now left in tatters.

The purported principles of the conservative activists cannot be limited to section 441b of title 2 of the United States Code, as amended by section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. If corporations can use their wealth to make independent expenditures for electioneering because they are now suddenly being given, by five people on the Supreme Court, constitutional rights in elections, what can prevent them from contributing to individual campaigns? What principle allows us to bar foreign corporations--foreign corporations--from likewise engaging in campaign communications?

The largest companies garner annual profits of hundreds of billions of dollars. They are doing this even during one of the greatest financial disasters in our Nation's history. If even a fraction of that money were directed toward political activity, those companies would have the financial power to dominate and determine this country's elections and the laws of this country. To put this in perspective, as Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center pointed out after the decision, if Exxon-Mobil diverted only two percent of the $45 billion in profits it generated in 2008, ``this one company could have outspent both presidential candidates and fundamentally changed the dynamic of the 2008 election.'' The same could be said for numerous other companies who will now be able to dwarf the contributions and voices of individual Americans.

The risks of this new ruling extend even further. The conservative activist majority in Citizens United fails to make clear whether the new ``rights'' it has conferred are limited to American corporations or if they apply to foreign corporations. Can the Chinese or subsidiaries of Chinese corporations or Saudi oil companies now also spend unlimited amounts of money and come in and decide, in effect, American elections?

Saudi Aramco is estimated to be worth $781 billion. Petro China's estimated net worth is $100 billion, with profits rivaling Exxon Mobil's, in the tens of billions each year. Likewise, Venezuelan oil takes in tens of billions a year. A German insurance company named Allianz is worth $2.5 trillion. Another insurance concern, ING Group, is valued around $2 trillion. HSBC Holdings is valued at almost $2.5 trillion, with annual sales of almost $150 billion. Bank of American itself has sales of over $100 billion a year. Then there are the Wall Street firms and investment houses, which certainly will not support planned banking industry reforms.

It is hard to envision this is what the Founders, who threw off the shackles of oppression, meant to enshrine in the Constitution when they wrote the First Amendment. It is also hard to understand how these conservative activists, who sound incessant alarm bells about the dangers of applying foreign law and recognizing rights for noncitizens in our courts, now cannot understand the threat of this encroachment on the very core of our democracy. The Citizens United decision is disconnected from the plain text and history of the Constitution, the careful policy choices of the elected branches, and the guidance of the Supreme Court's own legal precedents and the rule of law.

I am also disappointed with the Justices, who as nominees before the Senate, when they were testifying under oath, proclaimed their belief in judicial modesty and judicial restraint, could then turn around and so brazenly ignore the proper judicial role and in so cavalier a manner overturn Supreme Court precedent and override the rule of law. In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that ``there were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken.'' In deciding an unnecessarily broad question--when the parties themselves advanced numerous, narrower grounds of decision--the ``majority has transgressed yet another `cardinal' principle of the judicial process.''

I cannot remember a time in my 36 years in the Senate when I have come to this floor to criticize even decisions I disagree with, but this one I am because it goes to the very core of our democracy, and it will allow major corporations, which should have laws written to control their effect on America, to instead control America. That is not the America I grew up in. It is not the America Vermonters believe in, where individuals have a right to speak but not mega corporations.

How did the Court come to the opposite conclusion about the rights of corporations to spend unlimited money on elections from that enshrined in our laws and prior Supreme Court decisions? Did we amend the Constitution to somehow equate corporations to people? No, we did not. Nowhere does the Constitution even mention corporations. Did we modify the first

amendment? No. The first amendment reads as it did 6 years ago--indeed, as it did 219 years ago, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the 14th State in the Union--Vermont--ratified the Constitution.

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent:

The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and

McConnell is the composition of the court.

Six years ago Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the Supreme Court's majority upholding the limits on corporate spending in the McCain-Feingold Act, retired. The meaning of the Constitution should not change from one year to another due to the replacement of one Justice. As the dissenting Justices noted:

[T]he final principle of judicial process that the majority

violates is the most transparent: stare decisis. . . . But if

this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the

rule of law, it must at least demand a significant

justification, beyond the preferences of five justices, for

overturning settled doctrine.

As judicial nominees often testify, the rule of law depends on the stability provided by the consistent application and interpretation of the Constitution and the laws. So does the ability of Congress to act to pass laws. The Latin phrase that lawyers use to talk about the importance of respecting and following prior court rulings or precedent is ``stare decisis.''

As Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent:

Stare decisis protects not only personal rights involving

property or contract but also the ability of the elected

branches to shape their laws in an effective and coherent

fashion.

That is why every Supreme Court nominee that I can recall who has appeared before the Judiciary Committee has been asked whether he or she is committed to following precedent. This is central to assuring us and the country that a Justice will be committed to the rule of law and understands the role of a judge. Courts should only depart from precedent with ample justification. As Justice Stevens wrote in dissent:

No such justification exists in this case, and to the

contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep the

faith with our precedents.

The same five Justices willing to overturn well-established precedent to create broad new rights for corporations in Citizens United had no trouble severely limiting free speech rights for individuals. In a 2007 case, Morse v. Frederick, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, held that the First Amendment did not protect an 18-year-old student from being suspended for holding up a banner across the street from a school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. They held the principal could suspend that student, a legal adult, for displaying the banner, not on school grounds, but across the street from the school. All that was needed was for the school administrator to believe that the banner somehow promoted illegal drug use and was therefore against the school's policy. Perhaps if that student had incorporated, these five Justices would now find his First Amendment rights protected. These are the same Justices who recently reached out to ban the streaming of public trial proceedings on a matter of public interest, as well, on similarly flimsy grounds in order to impose their own preferences.

It is also difficult to understand the lack of concern in Citizens United for the potential of massive corporate spending to distort elections in light of the Supreme Court's ruling issued only months ago in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote that the possibility of bias due to campaign contributions in a state judicial election meant that the judge was wrong not to recuse himself from deciding a case involving a defendant who had spent $3 million supporting his election campaign to the bench. I agreed with that decision. There, Justice Kennedy wrote:

We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias--

based on objective and reasonable perceptions--when a person

with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant

and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the

case by raising funds or directing the judge's election

campaign when the case was pending or imminent.

What I do not understand is how these same standards and obvious logic were not applied to corporate spending in election campaigns.

Last week's decision and its troubling inconsistency with the Court's other interpretations of the Constitution leaves with us serious questions about how to ensure that our elections are not corrupted by unchecked corporate spending. It also reinforces the profound concern I have had about the real-world consequences of the Supreme Court's recent decisions for hard-working Americans--real Americans--on issues such as equal pay for equal work; the power of Congress under the 14th and 15th amendment, to pass civil rights laws, such as the Voting Rights Act; and issues thought to be long settled, such as the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education. The newly constituted Supreme Court seems determined to accrue to itself the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and to rewrite long-established precedents, certainly acting contrary to what these same Justices said in their sworn testimony when they were being confirmed. The Judiciary Committee has explored these concerns in a series of recent hearings, and we will hold a hearing soon to examine the impact of the Citizens United decision. This case is just the latest example of why every seat on the highest court affects the lives of everyday Americans.

I think every one of us, as Americans, must work to ensure that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders is not cast aside by the whimsical preferences of five Justices overriding the rights of 300 million Americans. I look forward to working with President Obama and Senators from both sides of the aisle as we try to restore the ability of every American to be heard and effectively participate in free and fair elections.

Again, I can only emphasize that I do not recall a time in my 36 years coming here to speak about Supreme Court decisions I disagree with, even though there have been many. But this is so egregious that, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would feel I was neglecting my duties if I did not come and speak against it.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2960 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')