Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we confirmed three nominations for high level positions in the Department of Justice. The Senate is moving forward to confirm the nomination of Gregory Katsas to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. This is a nomination that was set to be confirmed before the Easter recess until it was blocked by a last-minute, anonymous Republican hold and additional complications in our relationship with the Department of Justice arose. We have made sufficient progress to move forward today.

We also confirmed today two additional nominations, Kelly H. Rankin to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming and Clyde R. Cook to be U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Those are among the many presidential nominations that we have expedited through the Judiciary Committee. They were considered and reported by the Committee yesterday and being confirmed today.

With the confirmations today, we will have confirmed 35 executive nominations so far this Congress, including the confirmations of 12 U.S. attorneys, 7 U.S. marshals, and the top 3 positions at the Justice Department. When the President and Senate Republicans play to rightwing special interests with constant complaints about judicial nominations, they ignore the progress we have made to restock the leadership ranks at the Department of Justice that were decimated by the scandals of the Gonzales era.

Of course, the grumblings on judicial nominations from the other side of the aisle are nothing more than partisan, election-year rhetoric that rings particularly hollow in light of the progress we have made. With the 5 nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench confirmed this week by the Senate, including 2 for circuit court vacancies, the Senate under Democratic leadership has already, before the Fourth of July recess, matched the total of 54 judicial confirmations reached in 2 full years of the last Congress. That was a Congress with a Republican chairman and Republican majority working to confirm the nominees of a Republican President. And we have already matched their total.

The 14 judicial confirmations so far this year compare to the zero registered by a Republican led Senate by

this juncture during the 1996 session, another presidential election year.

The fact that Senate Democrats have moved more of President Bush's nominees more quickly when we have been in the majority than the Republicans did working with a President of their own party have is nothing new, just unacknowledged. We confirmed 100 nominations in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002, while working with a most uncooperative White House, reducing the judicial vacancies I confronted when I became Judiciary Committee chairman in the summer of 2001 by 45 percent by the end of 2002. The 40 additional judicial nominations we confirmed when I became chairman, again, last year was more than in any of the previous 3 years with a Republican majority and Republican chairman.

It is ironic that the Senate's Republican minority is so focused on the number of judges, because the reduction in judicial vacancies is the one number that has improved during the Bush administration in an era of skyrocketing gas prices, unemployment, health care costs and deficits and plummeting consumer confidence and home values.

On July 1, 2000, when a Republican Senate majority was considering the judicial nominees of a Democratic President in a presidential election year, there were 60 judicial vacancies. Twenty-one were circuit court vacancies. Those vacancies were the result of years of Republican pocket filibusters of judicial nominations. In stark contrast, after the 2 nominations we confirmed yesterday and the circuit court judges we confirmed on Tuesday, there are just 40 total judicial vacancies throughout the country, with only 9 circuit court vacancies. By confirming Judge Helene White and Ray Kethledge to the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, we reduced circuit court vacancies to single digits for the first time in decades--nine vacancies on our Nation's 13 circuit courts.

The Judiciary Committee and the Senate have continued to make progress filling judicial vacancies even while having to devote extensive time and attention to rebuilding the Department of Justice. At the beginning of this Congress, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts. Over the next 9 months, our efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as Senator Specter and I led a bipartisan group of concerned Senators to consider the U.S. attorney firing scandal, a confrontation over the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, the untoward political influence of the White House at the Department of Justice, and the secret legal memos excusing all manner of excess and subverting the rule of law.

What our efforts exposed was a crisis of leadership that took a heavy toll on the tradition of independence that has long guided the Justice Department and provided it with safe harbor from political interference. It shook the confidence of the American people. Through bipartisan efforts among those from both sides of the aisle who care about Federal law enforcement and the Department of Justice, we joined together to press for accountability. That resulted in a change in leadership at the Department, with the resignations of the Attorney General and many high-ranking Department officials.

This week's troubling report from the Department's inspector general confirms what our oversight efforts in this Congress have uncovered about the politicization of hiring practices at the Department. It confirms our findings and our fears that the same senior Department officials involved with the firing of U.S. attorneys were injecting improper political motives into the process of hiring young attorneys. I suspect further reports from the inspector general will continue to shed light on the extent to which the Bush administration has allowed politics to affect--and infect--the Department's priorities, from law enforcement to the operation of the crucial Civil Rights Division to the Department's hiring practices.

This report and those to follow will serve as a reminder to future Presidents that never again should blatant partisanship be made the crux of the Justice Department's hiring practices. The Department of Justice is not the President's legal defense team. It houses our Nation's top law enforcement officers, and it has been crippled in the last 7 years. By beginning the first real oversight efforts of this administration, we have uncovered troubling truths about this administration's efforts to infuse partisan politics into our Nation's top law enforcement agency.

The oversight efforts did not complete our work. Asy result of the mass resignations at the Justice Department in the wake of the scandals, the committee held seven hearings on highranking replacements to restock and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice between September of last year up through the spring, including confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General, the new Deputy Attorney General, the new Associate Attorney General, and so many others. I thank Senator Whitehouse for chairing the hearings on the Katsas nomination. Today we continue that progress by confirming another nominee for an important leadership position at the Department.

It is vital that we ensure that we have a functioning, independent Justice Department, and that we ensure that this sad era in the history of the Department is not repeated. We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to a President's agenda and the partisan desires of political operatives and it is a disaster for the American people. Both the President and the Nation are best served by a Justice Department that provides sound advice and takes responsible action, without regard to political considerations--not one that develops legalistic loopholes and ideological litmus tests to serve the ends of a particular administration.

I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I advise the distinguished leader, I will speak on these judges and judicial matters probably for 10 to 15 minutes at most, and then I would be prepared to go to a rollcall vote on William Lawrence, which would be the first one. I intend to support both nominees.

I advise the leader, four judges were reported out this morning, as well as a U.S. attorney and another one of President Bush's nominees.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the distinguished leader has put the Senate in executive session to consider two more judicial nominations. I would like to speak on these in my capacity both as a Senator from Vermont and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We are going to be confirming these two nominations which are, of course, for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, as the distinguished Presiding Officer, an attorney in her own right and with a distinguished background as a prosecutor in Minnesota prior to being here, knows. The two are William Lawrence, nominated to a vacancy in the Southern District of Indiana, and Murray Snow, nominated to a vacancy in the District of Arizona.

I have been delighted to work with my friend of 30 years, Senator Lugar of Indiana. He strongly supports the recommendation of Judge Lawrence. He came to see me about Judge Lawrence prior to his nomination coming up here. Senator Bayh of Indiana also came to see me and supports the nomination. I have been pleased to accommodate Senator Kyl in scheduling first Committee action and now Senate action on the nomination of Judge Snow. Both nominations are being expedited for confirmation in a Presidential election year.

As we approach the Fourth of July recess and celebrate the independence of our great Nation, we will be confirming our fourth and fifth judicial nominations of the week.

But when I go back home to Vermont, as I did this past weekend, and as I will this week, I find that Vermonters--and I suspect this is so with all Americans--are not really concerned about judicial nominations. I have not had anybody come up to me--when I am coming out of church or walking through the grocery store or gassing up my car-- and say: We need more judicial nominations.

But what they are concerned about are gas prices that have skyrocketed so high they don't know how they are going to be able to afford to drive to work. I have talked to parents of children in rural parts of our State where there is no mass transportation--never will be. They have to bring their children to school. Both the mother and father are working. They then have to drive to work. These are not high-paying jobs. They then have to drive back and get their children. One couple might have to take care of elderly parents, and they are wondering how they can afford to do it with these gas prices. They are far more concerned about that than they are with lifetime appointments to our Federal bench.

They are concerned also about the steepest decline in home values in two

decades. Madam President, when I was a child, I remember my parents always telling me one of the greatest things you can do is to own your own home. Marcelle and I have been fortunate. We have been able to do that. We have encouraged our children to do the same. And I encourage people in my own State of Vermont, especially young people: If you can own your own home, it is worth borrowing money because that will be part of your retirement, part of your stability. But now they have seen the steepest decline in home values in two decades. Many owe more on their house than their mortgage. Many are wondering as they see jobs failing, as they see their gasoline prices go up, as they see the value of their homes go down, if their children will have a brighter future than they did or their parents did.

More and more Americans are affected by rising unemployment. Last month brought the greatest 1-month rise in unemployment in 20 years. It brought the job losses for the first 5 consecutive months of this year to over 325,000 people. The number of people who lost their jobs are equal to half the population in my whole State. Americans are worried about soaring health care costs. They are worried about rising health insurance costs. They are worried about the rising costs of education. They are worried about rising food prices--long before they are worried about the number of Federal judges being confirmed.

Just yesterday, the front page of the Wall Street Journal had this headline: ``Consumer Confidence Plummets.'' That is a pretty dire headline: ``Consumer Confidence Plummets.'' The next line read: ``Home Prices See Sharp Decline.'' With that article they ran a graph titled ``In a Free Fall'' that shows housing prices in April down more than 15 percent from a year ago and consumer confidence at the lowest level in nearly 20 years. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of Americans saying they intend to buy a home in the next 6 months is at a 25-year low and consumers' expectations of the economy over the next 6 months is the lowest it has ever been in the more than 40 years they have kept track--the lowest it has ever been--ever been--in 40 years.

Unfortunately, the bad economic news for hard-working Americans is nothing new under the Bush-Cheney administration. During his administration, President Bush and all Americans have seen unemployment rise more than 20 percent and trillions of dollars in budget surplus-- which he inherited from President Clinton's administration--turned into trillions of dollars of debt, with an annual budget deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars. When President Bush took office, the price of gas was $1.42 a gallon. Madam President, I remember some people complaining about $1.42 a gallon gas when the President took office. Today, it is at an all-time high of over $4 a gallon. The Nation's trade deficit widened 8 percent in April alone due to the surging gas prices, and now it is at the highest level in 13 months.

The numbers are staggering: $4 a gallon for gas, $139 a barrel for oil, more than $1 billion a day--let me repeat that: $1 billion a day-- just to pay the interest on the national debt and the massive costs generated by the disastrous war in Iraq. These are the numbers Americans care about, not a few nominees who are getting the honor of a judicial appointment and lifetime tenure in a respected job that pays nearly $200,000 a year.

Yet we do not hear about these numbers from the other side of the aisle. We do not hear about the free-fall in home prices. We do not hear about the free-fall in the consumer confidence index from the other side. We do not hear about the Bush deficits, which have brought the value of a dollar down almost in half. We do not hear about these numbers, as terrible as they are, and as much as they affect real people in Minnesota and Vermont and elsewhere. We do not hear from them about the number of Americans who are losing their homes, nor about the number of Americans who are losing their jobs, nor about the number of Americans who cannot afford to bring their children to school, nor about the number of Americans who cannot afford to put groceries on the table, nor about the number of Americans who cannot afford to gas up their car so they can go to work. The only numbers we hear about from the other side of the aisle are the number of nominees they insist must be considered by a certain date to reach some mythical average number.

Week after week, even as the Senate--under the leadership of Senator Reid and the Democrats--continues to make progress on filling judicial vacancies, we hear a steady stream of grumbling from Republicans. And it turns out, they are responding to partisan pressures from special interest groups.

Madam President, the special interest group I listen to are the hard- working American families in my State of Vermont and the other 49 States. If we are going to listen to a special interest group, listen to the men and women who have to pay to take their children to school, put groceries on their table, go to work, try to make ends meet, and are seeing the value of their home drop 25 percent. If we are going to listen to any special interest group, at a time when the economy is tanking, let's talk about the special interest group, the average American man and woman.

It is ironic that the Senate's Republican minority is so focused on the number of judges because that is the only number that has actually improved under President Bush. On July 1, 2000, when a Republican Senate majority was considering the judicial nominees of a Democratic President in a Presidential election year, there were 60 judicial vacancies. Twenty-one were circuit court vacancies. These vacancies were the result of the actions of Republicans, when there was a Democrat in the White House, pocket-filibustering over 60 judicial nominees.

In stark contrast, after the two nominations we confirm today, and the circuit court judges we confirmed on Tuesday, there are just 40 total judicial vacancies throughout the country. There are only nine circuit court vacancies. By confirming Judge Helene White and Ray Kethledge to the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, we reduced circuit court vacancies to single digits for the first time in decades--only nine vacancies on our Nation's 13 circuit courts.

The history is clear. Democrats have reversed course on judicial vacancies from the days during which the Republican Senate majority more than doubled them. We have already lowered the 32 circuit court vacancies that existed when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001. We had 32 vacancies. We lowered it to nine. In fact, this is the first time we have hit single digits in decades--since the Republican tactics of slowing judicial confirmations began in earnest in 1996. Why? Because the Democrats did not pocket- filibuster 60 judges, as the Republicans did to a Democratic President. We treated President Bush's nominees with more respect than they treated President Clinton's. But we also treated the whole Federal judiciary system with a great deal more respect. This is, after all, the third independent branch of Government. It is the one branch that should be devoid of politics. It is the one branch that should be able to be set apart from this. And it is the one branch where you leave your political affiliations at the doors.

The 100 nominations we confirmed in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002-- I was working with a very uncooperative White House--reduced the vacancies I inherited by 45 percent by the end of 2002. I became chairman halfway through that year. The Republicans had been in control up to that halfway mark. They did not confirm a single judge. In 17 months, we confirmed 100.

So with 40 additional confirmations last year, and another 14 so far this year, the Senate, under Democratic leadership, has already matched the confirmation total for the entire last Congress. That was 2 full years with a Republican Senate majority working to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican President. In fact, after these two confirmations, we will have reached 54 judicial confirmations for this Congress.

I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed to energize a political base during an election year. I do not. The American people do not want Federal judges to be tied to partisan politics.

Madam President, I felt very honored to be a lawyer. I felt very honored to

try cases in Federal courts. I felt very honored to try cases when I was a prosecutor. And I feel honored to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I have always said one of the things you should be able to do if you walk into a court room--whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant, whether you are the Government or the other side, whether you are rich or poor, no matter your race, no matter your issue--you should be able to look at the judge and say: I am going to be treated fairly. The judge is not going to ask what my political party is, what my station in life is, whether I am a big corporation, whether I am a poor defendant or a plaintiff.

So when there are efforts to make a partisan issue over judicial confirmations, as my friends on the Republican side have done, that is sorely misplaced. Their obstructionism has done a great deal of damage to our attempts to address the important needs of Americans.

We have seen Republican obstructionism since the beginning of this Congress. Republicans used filibuster after filibuster to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the American people. Republican filibusters prevented the Senate majority from passing a climate change bill. Republican filibusters prevented the Senate majority from passing the Employee Free Choice Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Republican filibusters prevented the Senate majority from passing the DC Voting Rights Act. Republican filibusters prevented the Senate majority from passing the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Republican filibusters blocked the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. Republican filibusters blocked the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Republican filibusters blocked the Consumer First Energy Act. These are critical pieces of legislation to address the priorities not of special interest groups, but of real Americans--urgent priorities such as the energy crisis, the environment, voting rights and health care, and fair wages for working men and women. All of them had the support of the majority of the Senate. All were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators who filibustered them.

This long list of priorities unaddressed because of the Republicans in Congress would be even longer if we were to include the many important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress. That list includes legislation to fund stem cell research, to fight debilitating and deadly diseases such as Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes; to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children who are without it in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth; to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq that has lasted longer than we were in World War II; and to ban waterboarding and thus help restore America as the beacon for the rule of law.

The effort of Republicans to turn attention from the real issues facing Americans to win partisan political points with judicial nominations is another in a long line of tactics we have seen that have prevented us from making progress since the beginning of this Congress.

As I said before, people do not stop me in the grocery store or coming out of church or walking down the street or getting out of my car to say please confirm more judges. They say: Please, do something about the high cost of gasoline. Do something about the fact that I am going to lose my home in foreclosure because the value has dropped so much. Do something about the fact that our child does not have health insurance.

These tactics would be laughable if they were not tragic. I believe they are an affront to those men and women in this country who are working hard to make ends meet. I know a lot of these good, honest Americans. I see them every weekend in my own State of Vermont. They don't face problems as Republicans or Democrats; they face them as proud Americans, proud Vermonters. They wonder how they are ever going to get insurance for their child and they worry every day their child may become ill. They wonder if they can get to their job, and often they are holding down two jobs to make ends meet. They wonder if they can bring their children to school.

I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmation today. These nominees have good reason to be proud. I predict they will be confirmed unanimously, and I am proud of them, because the Federal judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be political or politicized regardless of who sits in the White House.

So let us stop using this question of judges as some kind of an issue in trying to distort the fact that the Democrats have treated President Bush better than the Republicans treated President Clinton on judges. Let us stop using the issue of judges to prevent us from addressing the things Americans care about: their jobs, their homes, their children, the cost of gas and oil.

I will continue in this Congress, and I will be here in January with a new President in the next Congress, to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and this real jewel of jurisprudence be able to provide justice for all Americans, as they say in their oath of office, without fear or favor.

Madam President, I have permission to yield back time on both sides of the aisle for the judges, so I yield it back.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of time on this side, and I am advised on the other side they yield their time. There is no need for a rollcall vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate will pass this legislation to exempt the African National Congress from designation under the Immigration and Nationality Act as a ``terrorist'' organization.

The historic role that the African National Congress played in ending the era of Apartheid in South Africa is well known, and I suspect that its designation as a terrorist organization is a surprise to many Americans. That the organization Nelson Mandela helped create to fight against an official policy of racism is deemed a terrorist organization is wrong and should be corrected.

I commend Senator Kerry and Congressman Berman for their attention to this issue, and the Members of the Judiciary Committee--Senators Biden, Schumer, Whitehouse, Feingold, and Cardin--who have lent their support to this effort.

The overly broad laws Congress passed in haste after September 11, 2001, continue to unnecessarily bar legitimate asylum seekers from the sanctuary of the United States. I worked to ensure that the administration has the authority to waive these laws for organizations and individuals, but the administration has been unwilling to exercise this authority of its own accord.

Secretary Rice quite rightly pointed out that her government counterpart in South Africa must apply for a waiver of the material support bar in order to enter the United States for an official visit, and that it is an embarrassment. I would hope and expect that this embarrassment is no less acute when victims of violent conflicts are denied asylum in the United States because of these same laws.

The Judiciary Committee's recent oversight hearing with Secretary Chertoff was an example of an administration that will only make the tough, but correct decisions when the scrutiny or public embarrassment becomes too much. At this hearing, Secretary Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reversed its position on a green card denial for an Iraqi who had been admitted into the United States on a special visa from Iraq. Salam Kareem Ahmad entered the United States after working as a translator for U.S. Marines in Iraq, and after receiving commendation from General Petraeus, only to be denied a green card by the administration.

Despite all of the administration's rhetoric about its commitment to freedom and democracy, DHS determined that Mr. Ahmad's involvement with an anti-Saddam Hussein group, the Kurdish Democratic Party, amounted to involvement with a terrorist organization. It should not take political pressure and media scrutiny to do the right thing. But in light of the administration's inattention to resolving injustices created by the material support bars, Congress is once again compelled to do what the administration can and should be doing on its own.

There is much work to be done by Congress and the next administration to fully resolve the terrible consequences these laws have brought about. I intend to continue working toward ensuring that our immigration and asylum laws are not used in a manner to harm those who come to the United States seeking its refuge and assistance. Our policies concerning asylum seekers have demonstrated America's commitment to human rights. The material support and terrorism bars that have prevented so many from our protection are a blemish on this legacy.

That was going to be my first unanimous consent request. My second one would be I ask consent that I be recognized following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, we have received a request that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, wishes to be recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, we have an ongoing debate on the whole question of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Since the beginning of this debate, I have opposed legislation that does not provide some kind of accountability for the 6 years of illegal warrantless wiretapping that was started and, in fact, approved by this administration.

The bill that has been presented to the Senate, as it stands now, absent any amendments, seems intended to result in the dismissal of ongoing cases against the telecommunication carriers that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. It would lead to the dismissal of the cases without allowing a court ever to review whether the program itself was legal.

So the bill would have the effect of ensuring that this administration, the administration that decided to carry out the illegal wiretapping, is never called to answer for its actions, and never held accountable in a court of law. I cannot support that result.

It is now almost 7 years since the President began an effort to circumvent the law in violation of the provisions of the governing statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I have said I believe that the conduct was illegal. In running its program of warrantless surveillance, the administration relied on result-oriented legal opinions. These opinions were prepared in secret. They were shown only to a tiny group of like-minded officials. This ensured, of course, that the administration received not independent legal advice, but the legal advice that it had predetermined it wanted.

A former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel described this program as a ``legal mess.''

And this administration wants to make sure no court ever reviews this legal mess.

The bill presented to the Senate seems designed to ensure that they are going to get their wish. The administration worked very hard to ensure that Congress could not effectively review the program or the basis for its arguments for immunity.

Since the existence of the program became known through the press, the Judiciary Committee has repeatedly tried to obtain access to information its members needed so we could evaluate the administration's legal arguments, which are squarely under the jurisdiction of our committee.

Indeed, Senator Specter, when he was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, prepared subpoenas to telecommunication carriers to obtain this information. He wanted information from the telecommunications carriers because the administration would not tell us directly what it had done. But those subpoenas sought by a Republican chairman were never issued.

As Senator Specter himself has explained publicly, Vice President Cheney intervened with other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee to undercut Senator Specter, and, of course, the Vice President then succeeded in blocking the subpoenas.

It was only just before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees' consideration of this bill that the Judiciary Committee members finally obtained access to some of the documents we had sought. I remind you, though, that most Members of this Chamber, most Senators called upon to vote, have not seen those documents. I have seen them, and I would hope that they would be made available to every Senator.

The Senators who have seen them have drawn very different conclusions. But no matter what conclusion you reach, you ought to get access to the documents so that you can make an informed judgment.

I will not discuss the documents that are still held in secret, but I will talk about the public reports. There are public reports that at least one telecommunications carrier refused to comply with the administration's request to cooperate with the warrantless wiretapping. All Senators should have had the opportunity to know those facts so they can make informed judgments whether there were legal claims that other carriers should have raised.

It is also clear that the Bush-Cheney administration did not want the Senate to evaluate the evidence and be able to draw its own conclusions. They wanted to avoid accountability.

Indeed, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with all of the work it has done on this issue, has not conducted a review of the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program.

Now, I am not here to try to get the telephone companies. According to public reports, at least one company said no, presumably because it feared that by complying it would break the law. Other phone companies, according to the public statements, apparently believed they were doing what was best for their country. I am not out to get them.

In fact, I would have supported legislation to have the Government indemnify the telecommunications carriers for any liability incurred at the behest of the Government. As I said, it is not a case of going after the phone companies; I want accountability.

I supported alternative efforts by Senator Specter and Senator Whitehouse to substitute the Government for the defendants in these cases. In other words, take the phone companies out and substitute the Government so the cases can proceed to a determination on the merits.

These alternatives would have allowed judicial review of the legality of the administration's acts--I think it is clear that the administration's actions were illegal--then let a court determine who was responsible for those actions.

This bill does not provide that accountability. As I read the language of the bill, it is designed to have the courts dismiss the pending cases if the Attorney General simply certifies to the court that the alleged activity was the subject of a written request from the Attorney General, and that request indicated the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

In other words, if the Attorney General said: Well, I do not care what the law says, I have determined that the President does not have to follow the law. If the Attorney General says, in effect, notwithstanding the rule of law in this country, this President is above the law, so, therefore, nothing he does is illegal. These kinds of baseless legal conclusions could form the basis for immunity under this scheme.

That is really what this bill provides. That concerns me, as it should concern everybody. We should not be dismissing Americans' claims that their fundamental rights were violated based on the mere assertion of a party in interest that what it did was lawful.

Think about it: this would be like a police officer catching someone committing a burglary and saying: I am going to arrest you for burglary. And the burglar sitting there with a bag of burglary tools, having broken in the door, saying: You cannot do that because I thought about this breaking and entering. I decided that in my case it is not illegal. And then the police officer has to say: Gee, I am sorry for the inconvenience, sir, go on your merry way.

That is what we are saying. Or actually, it is even worse than that. It is as if they actually arrested that burglar, they brought him into court, and the burglar stands up and says: Your Honor, I determined all by myself--disregarding you, Your Honor; disregarding the evidence, I determined all by myself--that even though I was involved in a burglary, I should not even be subject to the court's jurisdiction because I say that what I did was legal. Goodbye, Your Honor. Have a nice day. I am leaving.

That is what we are doing with this bill. In fact, there is not even a determination by the current Attorney General that the wireless wiretapping program was lawful, perhaps because he could not make such a determination. But all he has to do to ensure immunity is to certify that the phone company acted at the behest of the administration and that the administration indicated that the activity was determined to be lawful.

Regardless of whether or not it actually was lawful, all the Attorney General has to say is that it was determined to be lawful. We are not going to tell you when that determination was made. We are not even going to tell you whether the people who made that determination went to law school. It is lawful because the President is above the law; therefore, we are off the hook.

I believe the rule of law is important. I do not believe any one of us, the 100 of us in this body, is above the law. I have been here with six Presidents. I do not believe any one of them, Republican or Democratic Presidents, is above the law. I do not believe Congress should try to put a President above the law and seek to take away the only viable avenue for Americans to seek redress for harm to their privacy and liberty, and the only viable avenue of accountability for the administration's lawlessness.

Why should we, the United States Senate, the conscience of the Nation, why should we sit here and say: We are going to condone lawlessness, and even more importantly, we 100 people, acting on behalf of 300 million other Americans, are saying: We are never even going to let you know who committed the unlawful acts and why.

Now, I recognize this legislation also contains important surveillance authority. I support this new authority. I worked for years to craft legislation that provides that important authority along with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. I have voted for dozens of changes in the FISA legislation to be able to help our intelligence agencies.

In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under my leadership, reported such a bill last fall. So I commend House Majority Leader Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller, who negotiated this legislation, for incorporating several additional protections to bring it closer to the bill we voted out of the Judiciary Committee.

I note, in particular, the requirement of an inspector general review of this administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It is a provision I have advocated at every single meeting we have had, open or closed, through the course of the consideration of these matters. This review will provide for a

comprehensive examination of the relevant facts about this program.

Actually, it should prove useful to the next President. I believe we should have still more protections for privacy and civil liberties. If this bill becomes law I will work with the next administration on additional protections. Despite some improvements to the surveillance authorities the bill authorizes, improvements I support, I will not support this legislation. The administration broke the law. They violated FISA by conducting warrantless surveillance for more than 5 years, and they got caught. Now they want us to cover their actions. They want us to say: That's OK. Even though we don't know which one of you decided to break the law, we are going to let you all off the hook. The apparent purpose of title II of this bill is to ensure that they will not be held to account. That is wrong. I will, therefore, oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure. If the Senate proceeds to the bill, I will then support amendments to its unaccountability provisions, including an amendment to strike the immunity provisions. But if those are not successful, I will have to vote against it.

The bottom line is this: In America, nobody should be above the law. One thing unites every single Senator. We want to keep our great and good country safe. We all want to stop terrorists. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to do that. We have procedures to do that. But one of the principles of this country and something we have always preached to other countries is, that in good times and bad times, we follow the law. We did this during two world wars, in the Revolutionary War and in the Civil War.

I am imploring the Senate not to turn its back on over 200 years of history of following the law and saying, in this situation, we are going to condone an administration that broke the law. I cannot vote for that. I cannot in good conscience vote for that. I cannot be true to my own oath of office and vote for that. Certainly, I would not want to tell the people of Vermont I voted for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on July 4, our Nation will celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. While we mark this important anniversary, the country also celebrates the enactment earlier this year of the first major reforms to FOIA in over a decade--the OPEN Government Act--which will reinvigorate and strengthen this vital open government law for many years to come.

Now in its fourth decade, the Freedom of Information Act remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on bad policies and Government abuses.

The act has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act, which was signed into law on December 31, Americans who seek information under FIOA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays than it has been in the past. This is very good news. But there is still much more to be done to ensure that FOIA remains an effective tool for keeping our democracy open and free.

A key component of the OPEN Government Act is the creation of an Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, within the National Archives and Records Administration. The office would mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. Establishing a fully funded OGIS is essential to reversing the troubling trend of the last 7 years towards lax FOIA compliance and excessive Government secrecy.

I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies--a panel on which I serve--last week rejected the President's budget proposal to move the functions of OGIS to the Department of Justice. I will continue to work very hard to ensure that OGIS is fully funded within the National Archives--as Congress intended--so that this important office has the necessary resources to fully comply with the OPEN Government Act.

There is also more work to be done to further strengthen FOIA. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join with Senator John Cornyn in introducing the OPEN FOIA Act, S. 2746, a bill that requires Congress to clearly and explicitly state its intention to create a statutory exemption to FOIA when it provides for such an exemption in new legislation. While there is a very real need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good and safety, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy.

The OPEN FOIA Act provides a safeguard against the growing trend towards FOIA exemptions, and would make all FOIA exemptions clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated, before they are enacted into law. The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this bill at its business meeting this week, and I urge all members to support this legislation to further restore the public's trust in their Government.

As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to open and transparent government. As I have said many times, open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American value and a virtue that all Americans hold dear. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 42nd anniversary of the birth of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Am I correct that we are now on a judicial nomination?

Is there a time agreement?

I yield myself such time as I may need in the time allotted to the Senator from Vermont.

Today, the Senate is turning to a package of three nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench in Michigan, including President Bush's nominations of Judge Helene White and Raymond Kethledge to fill the final two vacancies of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

These nominations are the result of the hard work of Senators Levin and Stabenow, who consulted with President Bush to end a decade-long impasse in filling vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. During that time, Senate Republicans had blocked President Clinton's nominees to that circuit, leaving open four vacancies.

I am worried that some on the other side seem intent on preventing us from making this progress. Judge White's nomination should be a consensus nomination. Judge White was nominated by a Democratic President and by a Republican President. When the most partisan President in modern history, one responsible for sending us so many divisive nominations, renominates a Clinton judicial nominee, it actually should send a signal.

Nevertheless, her nomination drew criticism from the Republican leader and opposition from Republicans on our committee. After I expedited a hearing on the Michigan nominees, figuring that 10 years of waiting might have been enough, Republicans objected that we were moving too fast. They peppered her with more questions than any nominee of President Bush that I can recall. At our committee markup, Republicans made the wildly dumbfounding claims that she is not experienced. But after more than 25 years as a Michigan State court judge, including 15 as a State appellate court judge, she is a more experienced judicial nominee than many of those they previously supported.

It is interesting that Republicans did not raise this concern when they were supporting far less experienced nominees such as Jennifer Elrod and Catharina Haynes of Texas to fill circuit court vacancies. In fact, Judge White has been on the appellate bench longer than Mr. Kethledge, the other Sixth Circuit nominee, has been out of law school.

It is ironic that last week several Republican Senators held a press conference with representatives from right wing groups organized by a group calling itself Concerned Women for America. It is Republican opposition to a woman nominee that has been holding up the progress of filling judicial vacancies. Now this woman nominee they seemed concerned about is described on President Bush's White House Web site as ``an experienced and highly qualified judge, who is known for her intellect, work ethic, and demeanor.'' She has been given the highest rating for the position by the ABA. Yet her extensive experience, which is far more than the experience of many supported by my friends on the other side of the aisle, does not seem to meet the sudden last-minute standards set by Republican members of the committee.

As a state judge, she has not been called upon to consider and apply certain Federal statutes. That would be the same with thousands of state judges all over the country. It is understandable. But if you characterize her because of that as unqualified, that would turn back the clock to before the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been a State legislator and a State judge. Justice O'Connor was not experienced in deciding Federal law issues before confirmation as the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we should all agree she nonetheless served the Nation well in that capacity. And I agreed with her chief sponsor in this body, my friend and former colleague, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, and I was proud to join with him in voting for Sandra Day O'Connor.

It is also ironic that week after week, as the Senate continues to make progress in filling judicial vacancies, we hear a steady stream of grumbling from Republicans whose main priorities now seem to be to prevent the Senate and the Judiciary Committee from addressing the priorities of ordinary Americans. You would almost think that gasoline has not skyrocketed as the dollar has collapsed in value worldwide because of the huge debt caused by the Iraq war. They do not seem to realize that some of the typical Americans in my State of Vermont and, I suspect, the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey, are finding it very hard to buy gas to go to work or pick up their children after school or do their grocery shopping or visit an ailing parent. You would not think these were important matters when you hear of the priorities on the other side. You would not be aware there is a huge crisis in the housing industry, where people are losing houses all over this country, hard-working Americans who finally had the American dream of owning their own home and are now losing it. You would think that was not happening by what we hear from the other side.

Republicans are now regularly objecting to hearings before the Judiciary Committee. They seem disappointed when we conclude hearings within the first 2 hours of the Senate's day and they cannot disrupt them.

They objected to Senator Feinstein completing an important hearing on interrogation techniques used against detainees. It is almost as if, if we can block that hearing from happening, these terrible things never would have happened because Republicans foreclosed the ability of Americans to hear what went on in those hearings.

They objected to a hearing highlighting the impact of Supreme Court decisions on the daily lives of all Americans even though that meant cutting short the testimony of two brave women victimized by such a decision, Pennsylvanians who came to Washington to tell how badly they had been hurt by these decisions. The Republicans effectively silenced them to make sure they could not speak and could not testify because they said we should not have these Judiciary Committee meetings. So these two Pennsylvanians had to go back home unable to finish telling their story.

And a few days ago, the Republican minority objected to a hearing that had been requested by Judiciary Committee Republicans to examine the need for additional Federal judgeships throughout the country. This now all too familiar pattern is childish and serves no good purpose.

We will see later this week whether they allow Senator Biden to proceed to chair a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs concerning fugitives from justice.

Regrettably, these obstructionist tactics from the other side of the aisle are likely to continue without regard to the real priorities of the struggling Americans I spoke about, the voters who have elected every Senator to serve. Their priorities are being pushed aside.

We read last week another story about the dissatisfaction of right wing

activists and their pressuring of the Republican leadership in the Senate. We witnessed their response this month as they forced a reading of a substitute amendment to critical climate change legislation. They did this for hours and hours, thereby shutting down the work of the Senate.

Two weeks ago, we saw a story in Roll Call that included the headline ``Divided GOP Settles on a Fight Over Judges.'' That headline reminded me of the famous Wolfowitz quote about why the Bush administration settled on supposed weapons of mass destruction as the justification for attacking Iraq even though they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction--it was the rationale they could agree on. They all knew they wanted to attack Iraq, they knew they did not have the facts to attack Iraq, so they found a cover story they could use. And thousands of lives and $1 trillion later they say: Oops, sorry, no weapons of mass destruction, but, boy, we all agreed on the rationale.

The report in Roll Call included discussion by Republican Senators of the politics that fuels their efforts to appeal to ``conservative activists'' and ``ignite base voters'' and find an issue that ``serves as a rare unifier for Senate Republicans'' and their Presidential nominee. That piece mirrored an earlier article in the Washington Times, reporting how this is all part of an effort to bolster Senator McCain's standing among conservatives.

This political song-and-dance would not be so bad if it were not impacting the integrity and the independence of the Federal judiciary, something that in the past both Republicans and Democrats tried to protect.

I had suspected that much of this complaining was because Republican partisans were looking for an issue to energize their political base during an election year. The reports from the media outlets have confirmed my suspicions. I wonder if they realize that liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats are suffering from having to pay these outrageous gas prices. Wouldn't it be better if they worked on that?

Americans, Republicans and Democrats, in all parts of this country, are seeing their houses disappear and the value they had hoped for their retirement gone. Wouldn't addressing that be something better on which to unite America?

On this date in the 1996 session, another Presidential election year but one in which a Republican Senate majority was considering judicial nominees of a Democratic President, do you know how many judicial nominees had been confirmed? The answer is easy: None, not a single one. That was a session that ended without a single circuit court judge being confirmed.

By contrast, if Republicans will allow the confirmation of Judge White to the Sixth Circuit, we will have today completed the confirmations for 12 judges, including 4 circuit court judges, so far this Presidential election year, compared to 1996, when none had been confirmed at this point.

In addition to today's three nominees, two more judicial nominees already reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee are pending on the Senate's executive calendar. I have placed four more on the Judiciary Committee business agenda for later this week.

It is perhaps the ultimate irony that here, as the Democratic leadership of the Senate takes the extraordinary step of proceeding to two more of President Bush's circuit court nominees in June of a Presidential election year, I am being criticized by Republicans for, of all things, moving too quickly. I had hoped, in light of the discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader earlier this spring, to have concluded Senate action on this package of Michigan nominees more quickly. I tried to have these votes in May before the Memorial Day recess, but we were thwarted in that effort by Republican concerns about expediting consideration of these Bush nominees. So what we might have done in May, we are now having to do in June.

It reminds me a little bit of the Republican antics and shenanigans earlier this year that cost us progress in February. Rather than making progress, Republicans refused to make a quorum in the Judiciary Committee that entire month so no judicial nominees would come out in March, and then in March, they could give speeches.

So let there be no mistake. If Judge White is confirmed, we will have broken a 10-year impasse on the Sixth Circuit. By contrast, the Republican Senate majority during the Clinton years refused to consider President Clinton's Sixth Circuit nominees for 3 years and left four vacancies on that court.

When, as chairman, I scheduled a hearing and vote for Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of Tennessee and Judge John Marshall Rogers of Kentucky, we were able to confirm the first new judges to the Sixth Circuit in 5 years. The others had been pocket-filibustered by Republicans. I said we would not do the same thing to them, and we did not. We moved quickly on President Bush's nominees to that circuit. The confirmations of Judge White and Mr. Kethledge of Michigan would complete the process by filling the two remaining vacancies on the Sixth Circuit.

Judge White was first nominated by President Clinton to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit more than 11 years ago, but the Republican-led Senate refused to act on her nomination. She waited in vain for 1,454 days for a hearing before President Bush withdrew her nomination in March 2001. Hers was 1 of more than 60 qualified judicial nominees pocket- filibustered by Republicans. This year, President Bush reconsidered and renominated her, and I applaud President Bush for doing so. He deserves credit for trying to close the door on a sorry chapter. I commend the President for doing it and for what he has said on his White House Web site about Judge White's nomination. I hope the Senate will follow the example of President Bush and confirm Judge White to one of the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit.

The Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit have proven a great challenge. I commend the senior Senator from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and his outstanding colleague, Senator Stabenow, for working to end years of impasse. I had urged the President to work with the Michigan Senators. After 7 years, he now has.

We have come a long way since I became chairman in 2001 when the Sixth Circuit was in turmoil because Republicans had blocked nominations for many years. Today we complete that progress by confirming Judge White and Raymond Kethledge.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time. How much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield without losing the floor?

Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator said. I hope people understand who are listening. I know the two Senators from Michigan are going to speak very briefly. But if we wrapped up the comments in, say, the next 15, 20 minutes, we could then go to a rollcall vote on Helene White. I would agree, then, to a voice vote on the other two judges, provided the ranking member had no objection to that, which would probably bring about a huge sigh of relief from Senators on both sides of the aisle that we would not be stuck here with three votes.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, when the Senator from Pennsylvania is finished, I know Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow wished to speak very briefly. If that was the case, I hope that maybe within the next 10 minutes or so, or that by 6:30, or at 6:30, that perhaps what we can do is this: Let's say at 6:30, if the Senator from Pennsylvania would agree that we might vote at 6:30, then under the previous unanimous consent, if Judge White is confirmed, assuming she is, but if she is under the unanimous consent, then the regular order would be to go to the other two nominees from Michigan. It would be my intent--unless somebody objected--it would be my intent to do those by voice vote. That, of course, is contingent upon her being confirmed under the unanimous consent agreement that I have been shown. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I had hoped that before the Senate we not would hear unfair criticism leveled at Judge White. Last month, Senator Brownback publicly apologized for his actions at her confirmation hearing, and I commended him for doing so. After Judge White answered the scores of time-consuming questions Republicans sent to her and the committee had received the updated ABA ratings emphasized so much by Republicans in connection with these nominations, I hoped we could move forward with this in a consensus fashion. It is disappointing that some still seem bent on grasping at straws to criticize Judge White, applying a different standard from that which they used to evaluate other Bush judicial nominees.

Judge Helene White has served on the Michigan Court of Appeals for the past 15 years, having been elected by the people of Michigan in 1992. Before that she served for a dozen years on the Wayne County Circuit Court, the Common Pleas Court for the city of Detroit, and the 36th District Court of Michigan. She is described on the Bush White House Web site as ``an experienced and highly qualified judge, who is known for her intellect, work ethic, and demeanor.''

Judge White has been now been nominated by Presidents from both parties, by a Democratic President and by a Republic President. She has served as a Michigan State court judge for more than 25 years. In addition, she has been active as a member of the legal community and of community organizations including COTS, Coalition on Temporary Shelter; JVS, Jewish Vocational Services; and the Metropolitan Detroit Young Women's Christian Association. She should be a consensus confirmation.

Oddly, Republican attacks on Judge White have focused on what they term a lack of experience. Somehow, someone who has been a respected appellate judge for 15 years, who has served as a judge for well over 25 years, and who the ABA rates as well qualified for the Federal circuit court , is in their view not ``experienced'' enough to be a Federal appellate court judge.

Some Senators suggested that her lack of experience with specific Federal issues that never come before even the most experienced State judge was a problem. They ignore the fact that judges always have to learn new areas of the law as new cases come before them, and no one is better prepared to do that than an experienced jurist like Judge White.

Indeed, Mr. Kethledge, President Bush's youthful nominee to the other vacancy on the Sixth Circuit, was gracious enough to concede at the hearing that he, too, lacked experience in the same specific areas of Federal law. Yet his qualifications have not been in called into question by Republican Senators. Judge White has served as a Michigan State appellate court judge longer than Mr. Kethledge has been out of law school, but some are questioning her experience while embracing his relatively lack of experience.

With these criticisms, Republicans risk turning back the clock to before the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who herself had been a State legislator and State judge. Justice O'Connor was not experienced in deciding Federal law issues before her confirmation as the first female justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we can agree that she nonetheless served the Nation well in that capacity.

Should we conclude from the Republic attacks that no State court judge can be confirmed to sit on a Federal court? Certainly Jennifer Elrod, a State court judge with far less experience than Judge White, who the Senate confirmed to the Fifth Circuit late last year, was not held to that standard by the Republicans. Indeed, recall what Senator Cornyn said about her nomination: ``I would point out that when it comes to experience, most of us, when we apply for a new job, or a nominee, have rarely done that job before. So the question is not whether you have actually done that job before, it's whether you are likely to do a good job, if confirmed.''

Others have pointed to a handful cases in which Judge White was on a panel decision that was reversed. This handful of cases comes from 4,300 cases she heard on the bench. These were cases in which Judge White joined a unanimous panel of her court or in one

instance where she agreed with the rest of the court on the law and differed only on the facts. More to the point, they were cases of such limited precedential value that the decisions were not even published. When asked about each case, Judge White testified that she accepted the Michigan Supreme Court's decision as correct. I hope that in a long career spanning thousands of decisions, she will not be judged by a few unremarkable cases. Republicans have certainly asked us not to focus on a small handful of cases decided by other Bush nominees, even when the cases in question were far more noteworthy.

Republicans have simply not been able to point to anything in Judge White's long and distinguished career that should disqualify her or even justify a negative vote. It is unfortunate that some Republicans seem to be trying so hard to find reasons not to support this particular nominee.

I hope that Republican and Democratic Senators will join together to support her nomination and the entire package of Michigan nominations that President Bush has sent to us after consultation with Senators Levin and Stabenow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. First, I commend the two Senators from Michigan, who spent years working out this conclusion for these three nominees to be here. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow for working so hard. Senator Cardin spent so much time at the hearing with me. I appreciate the amount of time he spent there. His words of calm reasoning, but with questions that cut right to the importance of the hearing, were extremely valuable.

If nobody else is seeking recognition, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum in a moment. So that Senators will understand, at 6:30 I will call off the quorum, and the time will be yielded back on both sides. Then we will go to a rollcall vote on Helene White.

If Judge White is confirmed, as I fully expect she will be, then we will go to the next two judges, but only if she is confirmed. Again, Senator Specter and I have both said we expect she will be. We will go to the next two judges, and I don't know of anyone who will require a rollcall vote on those two judges.

With that, 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 for the yeas and nays on the nominee.

I am authorized to yield back all time on both sides. I yield back all time on both sides.

Mr. President, I am satisfied with a voice vote on this nominee.

Mr. President, because of the lateness of the hour, I am willing to forgo a rollcall on this nominee and a voice vote will be sufficient.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished leader for helping us to get here.

Mr. President, our Nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of those who risked their lives in the pursuit of making America a more perfect union. This week, we commemorate the 44th anniversary of the day three brave civil rights workers--James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman--paid the ultimate price in the struggle to secure civil rights and expand our democracy for all Americans.

On June 21, 1964, these three young men were abducted, brutally beaten, and shot to death by Ku Klux Klansmen for simply attempting to register African-Americans voters. Their deaths touched the conscience of our country and inspired events that changed the course of our history. The public outcry over the initial disappearance of these workers drew national and international attention to the violence associated with efforts to register African-American voters. It spurred efforts to desegregate the voting delegates at political party conventions. And it served as a catalyst for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, key legislation that would eliminate segregation and usher in a new era of equal opportunity and access to our democracy for all Americans.

Unfortunately, our march toward equal justice under law is not yet complete. Three years ago, Edgar Ray Killen was convicted for the deaths of the three civil rights workers we honor today. Almost two dozen other men were involved in this crime; some are still alive, yet, none have ever been held charged with this murder. Even more troubling, the families of hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives in the fight for equal rights still await justice.

As we pass this resolution, we must recognize that it is long past time to pass the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which would strengthen our ability to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed this bill. Yet, one lone Republican Senator has prevented this important bill from passing. As we commemorate the deaths of three of the most celebrated civil rights activists of the past, let us remember this does not obviate our need to solve the hundreds of less recognized civil rights crimes of that era.

Today's resolution is an important gesture for us to remember the civil rights misdeeds of the past. But it is also an opportunity for Congress to show the country that we will not tolerate similar offenses. As we pass this resolution, it is fitting to carry this principle to the present and act in kind to prevent hate crimes and civil rights abuses occurring now in this country and around the world.

The powerful inscription on the grave of James Chaney reads: ``There are those who are alive, yet will never live; there are those who are dead, yet will live forever; great deeds inspire and encourage the living.'' By remembering Mr. Chaney, Mr. Schwerner, and Mr. Goodman today, I hope we all can be inspired to renewed action in this Congress. Let us pass the Till bill to ensure that those who sacrificed their lives in pursuit of justice are not forgotten and the perpetrators of these crimes are held accountable.

Madam President, it is my privilege today to salute Vermont radio personalities Steve Cormier and Tom Brennan, best known to Vermonters as the morning team ``Corm & the Coach'' on Champ 101.3.

Sixteen years ago, University of Vermont basketball coach Tom Brennan made a guest radio appearance on Steve Cormier's radio show. The two of them hit it off, not only as a duo, but with listeners. What started as a guest spot ended up becoming an extremely popular morning radio show for 16 years.

Recently, Coach Brennan decided to go out on top, as he did when he retired from the University of Vermont following three consecutive America East Conference championships. ``Corm & the Coach'' will air for the final time on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Fortunately for Vermonters, Corm will remain on the air, continuing to keep us both entertained and informed, and Coach Brennan will continue to provide expert college basketball analysis on ESPN.

I have had the good fortune to appear on ``Corm & the Coach'' many times, and thought it important to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to both of them. In honor of a great 16 years of ``Corm & the Coach,'' I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press, Corm To Carry On, Without The Coach, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Col. Gregg Olson, USMC, who will complete his 2 year tour of duty with the United States Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs on June 24, 2008. I have had the pleasure to work with Colonel Olson on many occasions. In his role as the Director of the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office, he has provided superb support, acting as the principal conduit for information between the Marine Corps and many members of the Senate. His affable personality and attention to duty contributed to a highly successful relationship between the United States Senate and the United States Marine Corps. Though he will continue his service to the Marine Corps and the country, he will be sorely missed.

A native of Rhode Island, Colonel Olson attended the United States Naval Academy, and received a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in 1985. His career as a Marine officer has been exemplary, serving with distinction in every post he has been assigned. Prior to his assignment to the United States Senate, he served two tours in Iraq,

first as an Operations Officer to a Marine Expeditionary Unit in 2003, and then as a Battalion Commander in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. His battalion was involved in the Battle of Fallujah, which saw some of the most intense house-to-house fighting of the war. Many proud Marines under his command gave their lives in that battle.

Over the past 24 months, his unselfish devotion to duty, exceptional performance, and outstanding professionalism have translated into invaluable service to the Senate. He has advised Members and Senate staff members on matters of great importance to the United States Marine Corps. In the fluid nature of the legislative cycle, he distinguished himself by establishing and developing great working relationships with Senators and their staffs. He responded to thousands of congressional inquiries, ranging from such sensitive issues as notification of combat casualties, to providing timely information on the operations and budget of the Marine Corps.

He also planned and executed approximately 15 international congressional delegations. I had the pleasure of traveling on several of these congressional delegations with Colonel Olson. His acumen for social interaction carried over into Colonel Olson's ability to represent his service at numerous Marine Corps and Joint Service social events on Capitol Hill. Among others, these events included the Marine Corps Birthday Commemoration, the Joint Services Reception, and several Marine Corps fall and spring receptions--all important events that enabled me and my Senate colleagues to maintain close relationships with the Marine Corps' senior leadership.

On behalf of the Senate, I thank Colonel Olson for his continued service to the Nation and the United States Marine Corps, and I thank his wife, Dawn, for her steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty. As Gregg departs the Senate to assume command of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton, CA, we in the U.S. Senate wish him all the best.

Mr. President, the Burlington Free Press recently printed an article about SymQuest Group Inc. in South Burlington. It was especially interesting to me, as I know the cofounders, Larry Sudbay and Pat Robins, very well.

In the article, Mr. Sudbay was said to make their success and the honors they have won seem very easy. One would have to know Larry Sudbay to realize that what he makes seem easy can be a Herculean task for most people.

The other cofounder is Pat Robins of Burlington. I was privileged to not only be a classmate of Pat's at St. Michael's College, but to have the further privilege of maintaining our friendship for the past 50 years.

Vermont is a small State with much to make us proud. People like Larry Subday and Pat Robins make our State even better.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Free Press be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to June Salander of Rutland, VT. On June 28, 2008, June will celebrate her 100th birthday.

June Salander has led a remarkable life. Like many Jewish immigrants, she came to the United States via Ellis Island in 1920 after a journey from Ros, Poland, making the trip with her mother, brother, and sister. Family and a supportive Jewish community were always positioned as cornerstones of June's upbringing. In 1941 she married her husband Lew Salander and moved to Rutland, VT, where she has remained an active community member ever since. A strong believer in the idea that it takes a village to raise a child, June has lent her time volunteering at the Rutland Hospital and teaching Hebrew school classes. June has remained an active citizen into her golden years, earning her real estate license at the age of 62 and taking up tennis at the impressive age of 73. Her commitment to education and community outreach expands to the home with June's famous cooking. June warms the homes and lives of others with her legendary apple strudel which she has shared through cooking lessons. She continues to inspire with her dedication to continual learning and improvement.

June Salander inspires with her energy and enthusiasm within the religious community as well. The Rutland Jewish Center has remained an integral part of her social and cultural life. June's daughter, Menasha, accurately describes the center as June's living room, kitchen, dining room, and backyard. Deeply rooted community involvement remains a core value, and to further uphold and solidify the Jewish tradition, June was Bat Mitzvahed at the extraordinary age of 89. It is believed that June is the oldest Rutland resident to complete the significant ceremony. Her commitment to observing Judaism and keeping tradition alive through education is a landmark of encouragement and pride for the Jewish community. I congratulate June Salander as she reaches yet another remarkable milestone, her 100th birthday. The message she has instilled in others through a lifetime of active citizenship is commendable. I am confident that June's spiritually fulfilling and publicly active life will continue to inspire others for years to come.

On a personal note, my wife Marcelle and I have cherished her friendship for a third of a century, as we did that of her wonderful husband.

Mr. President, this is a proud moment for our family. I commend our guest Chaplain, Father Pomerleau. For years I have called him ``pere frere,'' which is French for my father brother. Father Pomerleau is my brother-in-law. He is the brother of my wife Marcelle Pomerleau Leahy.

It was in 1965 when Marcelle and I and Father Pomerleau's parents, Phil and Cecile Pomerleau, went to Rome for Father Pomerleau's ordination to the priesthood. I remember the thrill of our first trip abroad, but it was for such a special occasion. He said mass, his first mass, in the catacombs in Rome, something we will never forget.

Father Pomerleau received his bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame. He is a Holy Cross priest. They are the ones who run Notre Dame. He received his masters there and got his masters in theology from the Gregorian in Rome and his doctorate from the University of Denver. He has been the rector of Saint George's in Santiago, Chile. He has been a professor at the University of Chile, presently a professor at the University of Portland, and is the religious superior for the order there.

I can go on forever reciting the long list of his accomplishments. More the way we think of him is this Sunday on Father's Day, he joined Marcelle and myself at our home, one of our sons, our daughter, son-in- law and daughter-in-law, and three grandchildren. We were watching the little grandchildren climbing into his lap saying: Uncle Claude, Uncle Claude, will you read us a story? That was part of his pastorage, too.

I am proud to have been able to introduce him. I thank the distinguished leader for letting me have this time.

I yield the floor.