Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use.

The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work.

Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages.

In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she

cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer.

What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused.

I thank Senator Hatch for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator Hatch as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use.

The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work.

Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages.

In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she

cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer.

What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused.

I thank Senator Hatch for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator Hatch as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the Record.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working women in our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to prevent discrimination in the workplace based on an employee's sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Ledbetter decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court misinterpreting congressional intent and denying justice to a victim of discrimination.

For nearly two decades, Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire, was paid significantly less than her male counterparts. Nonetheless, a thin majority of Justices on the Supreme Court found that she was ineligible for title VII protection against discriminatory pay because she did not file her claim within 180 days of Goodyear's repeatedly discriminatory pay decisions.

The Supreme Court's ruling sent the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. Ms. Ledbetter only found out that she was earning as much as $15,000 less per year than a male coworker with the same job and seniority when an anonymous letter appeared on her desk weeks before her retirement. By the time she retired in 1997, Ms. Ledbetter's monthly salary, despite receiving several performance based awards, was almost $600 less than the lowest paid male manager and $1,500 less than the highest paid male manager.

Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees like Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination because of their sex, race, color, national origin or religion--however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation guts the purpose and intent of the bipartisan and historic effort to root out discrimination. Ms. Ledbetter argued that her claim fell within the 180 day window provided under title VII for filing claims because she suffered continuing effects from her employer's discrimination. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that she was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, five Justices of the Supreme Court overturned the jury's decision, holding that Ms. Ledbetter was not protected under the law because she filed suit more than 180 days after her employer's discriminatory act.

This Supreme Court decision contradicts both the spirit and clear intent of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which was created to protect workers from discriminatory pay. The Court's 5-to-4 decision undercuts enforcement against discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. In Justice Ginsburg's dissent, she wrote that the Court's decision ``is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure.''

This October, my wife Marcelle and I will host Vermont's 12th annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, a chance for women to come together to learn new career skills. Thousands of women in my State have used these skills to advance their careers. It is a shame that despite such initiatives and years of hard work, women continue to suffer pay discrimination. I commend the Vermont Legislature for passing laws requiring equal pay for equal work and barring employers from retaliating against employees for disclosing the amount of their wages. Unfortunately, not all States offer these protections.

For all of the gains that women have made in the past century, there remains a troubling constant--women continue to earn less than men--on average, only 77 cents on the dollar. Discriminatory pay not only affects women it affects their children, their families, and all of us who believe in the words inscribed on the Vermont marble of the Supreme Court building ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct the unfortunate and cramped ruling of the Supreme Court which denied Ms. Ledbetter equal justice. It would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify that an unlawful employment practice occurs not only when that discriminatory decision first goes into effect but each time an individual is affected by it, such as each time compensation is paid.

The House of Representatives passed this bill in a bipartisan vote last summer. It also has bipartisan support here in the Senate, but unfortunately some Republicans have objected to even considering the bill. I hope their filibuster can be broken so that we can clarify that discrimination against hard-working men and women in their own workplaces is not the American way. The law and our justice system should protect working people when it happens. Our bill underscores this vital American principle against efforts to devalue it.

Mr. President, this country recently marked the 5-year anniversary of the war in Iraq--a war that the Bush administration refuses to end. The losses in this war have been staggering. More than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 30,000 wounded. Hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars has been spent to fight this war, money which could have been--and should have been--used to help American needs here at home. Estimates for the cost of the President's adventure in Iraq are now into the trillions.

Through it all, the Bush administration has chosen essentially to ignore one of its primary obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud, waste, and abuse of military contracts. Sadly, these problems are all too common in times of war, and have been particularly pervasive in Iraq.

Over the past year, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. It has also shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war.

These problems have been exacerbated time and time again by the Bush administration, as tens of billions of dollars in ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money-- have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. The Government has been billed for defective products, like faulty ammunition, unsafe bulletproof vests, and even unsanitary drinking water for the troops.

Too often we do not learn about serious fraud until years after the fact. What we do know is that tens of billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and potentially lost to fraud, and little has been done to hold anyone accountable and recover the lost money.

This problem is not entirely new. Our nation has faced challenges in past wars. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war.

Unlike the current President, however, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman took action to ensure that wartime fraud could be successfully investigated and prosecuted despite the difficulties presented by an ongoing war.

In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman signed a bill making that law permanent in 1948.

Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all contracting fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided for the suspension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote: ``The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding just penalties for wrongdoing.''

While the provision for post-war enforcement against fraud is still the law today, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from its requirements. This Roosevelt-era law only applies ``when the United States is at war.'' The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without Congressional declarations of war. In recent decades, Congress has

considered authorizations for the use of the Armed Forces, rather than formal declarations of war. I voted for the authorization to strike back at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I voted against the ill- conceived authorization to go into Iraq.

Today we introduce the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008, which updates President Roosevelt's law for our times. This will allow us better to protect American taxpayers from contracting fraud today, just as we did during World War II. I thank Senator Grassley for his co-sponsorship of this important legislation. He has been a leader in Congress on efforts to investigate and combat fraud against the United States.

This bill would make current law suspending the statute of limitations during wartime applicable to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we would allow investigators and auditors to continue their efforts to uncover criminal fraud and for those who commit fraud to be brought to justice after the conflicts end. If left unchanged, under the current statute of limitations, each passing day of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to immunizing fraudulent conduct by war contractors that has gone undiscovered during the Bush Administration or during the conflicts.

This legislation would make three simple changes to current law. First, it would suspend the statute of limitations not only to when the United States is technically engaged in a declared war, but also when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers Resolution. In doing so, this language would apply the existing World War II-era law to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to similar actions in the future. It would not apply, however, to international peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations or to military actions not specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, the legislation would extend the statute of limitations for five years after the end of the conflict. The statute of limitations today for criminal fraud offense is five years from the time of the offense, and this bill would just toll the running of the statute during the conflict itself and not a day longer.

Three, the bill would make clear that a Presidential proclamation ending hostilities, and thus ending the tolling of the statute of limitations period, must be a formal proclamation with notice to Congress. Secret proclamation by the President or a self-serving ``mission accomplished'' speech will not do the trick.

The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should not act to suspend it except in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, and current law recognizes this common sense reality by suspending the statute of limitation for fraud offenses during wartime. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this law and to allow war profiteers immunity for their illegal and unpatriotic conduct during wartime.

President Roosevelt called upon Congress to act on this important matter during World War II. Today, I echo his concerns and call upon the Senate to pass this legislation to protect the American taxpayers from war contracting fraud. This Congress should pass--and the President should sign--the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 without delay.

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

Mr. President, this country recently marked the 5-year anniversary of the war in Iraq--a war that the Bush administration refuses to end. The losses in this war have been staggering. More than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 30,000 wounded. Hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars has been spent to fight this war, money which could have been--and should have been--used to help American needs here at home. Estimates for the cost of the President's adventure in Iraq are now into the trillions.

Through it all, the Bush administration has chosen essentially to ignore one of its primary obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud, waste, and abuse of military contracts. Sadly, these problems are all too common in times of war, and have been particularly pervasive in Iraq.

Over the past year, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. It has also shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war.

These problems have been exacerbated time and time again by the Bush administration, as tens of billions of dollars in ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money-- have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. The Government has been billed for defective products, like faulty ammunition, unsafe bulletproof vests, and even unsanitary drinking water for the troops.

Too often we do not learn about serious fraud until years after the fact. What we do know is that tens of billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and potentially lost to fraud, and little has been done to hold anyone accountable and recover the lost money.

This problem is not entirely new. Our nation has faced challenges in past wars. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war.

Unlike the current President, however, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman took action to ensure that wartime fraud could be successfully investigated and prosecuted despite the difficulties presented by an ongoing war.

In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman signed a bill making that law permanent in 1948.

Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all contracting fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided for the suspension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote: ``The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding just penalties for wrongdoing.''

While the provision for post-war enforcement against fraud is still the law today, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from its requirements. This Roosevelt-era law only applies ``when the United States is at war.'' The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without Congressional declarations of war. In recent decades, Congress has

considered authorizations for the use of the Armed Forces, rather than formal declarations of war. I voted for the authorization to strike back at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I voted against the ill- conceived authorization to go into Iraq.

Today we introduce the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008, which updates President Roosevelt's law for our times. This will allow us better to protect American taxpayers from contracting fraud today, just as we did during World War II. I thank Senator Grassley for his co-sponsorship of this important legislation. He has been a leader in Congress on efforts to investigate and combat fraud against the United States.

This bill would make current law suspending the statute of limitations during wartime applicable to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we would allow investigators and auditors to continue their efforts to uncover criminal fraud and for those who commit fraud to be brought to justice after the conflicts end. If left unchanged, under the current statute of limitations, each passing day of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to immunizing fraudulent conduct by war contractors that has gone undiscovered during the Bush Administration or during the conflicts.

This legislation would make three simple changes to current law. First, it would suspend the statute of limitations not only to when the United States is technically engaged in a declared war, but also when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers Resolution. In doing so, this language would apply the existing World War II-era law to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to similar actions in the future. It would not apply, however, to international peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations or to military actions not specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, the legislation would extend the statute of limitations for five years after the end of the conflict. The statute of limitations today for criminal fraud offense is five years from the time of the offense, and this bill would just toll the running of the statute during the conflict itself and not a day longer.

Three, the bill would make clear that a Presidential proclamation ending hostilities, and thus ending the tolling of the statute of limitations period, must be a formal proclamation with notice to Congress. Secret proclamation by the President or a self-serving ``mission accomplished'' speech will not do the trick.

The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should not act to suspend it except in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, and current law recognizes this common sense reality by suspending the statute of limitation for fraud offenses during wartime. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this law and to allow war profiteers immunity for their illegal and unpatriotic conduct during wartime.

President Roosevelt called upon Congress to act on this important matter during World War II. Today, I echo his concerns and call upon the Senate to pass this legislation to protect the American taxpayers from war contracting fraud. This Congress should pass--and the President should sign--the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 without delay.

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

Madam President, Senate Democrats have worked hard to make progress on judicial nominations. That hard work has paid off, with circuit court vacancies at less than half of what they were when President Clinton left office. The majority leader last week was right to call the Republican complaints chutzpah.

Yesterday, the Michigan Senators and I were able to overcome a long impasse lasting more than a decade over vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. I have long urged the President to work with the Michigan Senators, and, after 7 years, he finally has. With his nomination of Judge Helene White of Michigan, we have a significant development that can lead to filling the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit before this year ends.

Our actions in resolving this impasse stands is sharp contrast to action of Senate Republicans who refused to consider any nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, leaving open four vacancies. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow, we are now poised to fill them all.

Judge White was initially nominated 11 years ago, but her nomination was 1 of the more than 60 judicial nominees the Republicans pocket filibustered. After literally years of work, her renomination yesterday allows us to move forward with the support of the Senators from Michigan. I plan to consider the Sixth Circuit nominations as quickly as possible.

We are also poised to make progress to end a long impasse on the Fourth Circuit with the pending nomination of Steve Agee of Virginia. After insisting on nominating a series of contentious and time- consuming choices such as Jim Haynes, Claude Allen and Duncan Getchell, a nomination that was not supported by either the Republican Senator or the Democratic Senator from Virginia, the President this year has finally chosen to work with Senator Warner and Senator Webb. I have already said that I expect to hold the confirmation hearing on the Agee nomination as soon as the paperwork is completed. If we are able to confirm Steve Agee, there will be fewer Fourth Circuit vacancies than there were at the end of the Clinton administration.

Just last week, on a day when the Republicans chose to ignore the pressing problems affecting the lives of the American people and vent over judicial nominations, the Senate proceeded on schedule to confirm another five lifetime judicial appointments, including that of Catharina Haynes to fill the last vacancy on the Fifth Circuit. Similar to yesterday's progress with nominations to the Sixth Circuit, this stands in marked contrast to consideration of nominations to that court during the Clinton administration. At that time, the Republican- controlled Senate refused to consider nominees for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, while the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared a circuit-wide emergency. Today, there are no vacancies on the Fifth Circuit.

I have said for 8 years that if the President is willing to work with us and consult in the constitutionally mandated process of advice and consent, we can make significant progress. When he does so, as he has recently with respect to Virginia and now Michigan, I have commended him. I do so again today.

It has taken years. It has taken effort. It has taken the steadfastness of Senators Levin and Stabenow. Today we can all take heart that we have broken through a decade's old impasse. Others have tried but been unsuccessful. I know that Senator Hatch tried and Senator Specter tried. We are succeeding. We are succeeding because we

have not been distracted by politically driven fights but stayed focus on making real progress. Even now, while others insist on fussing and fighting, I am working to continue to make progress where we can.

We have already cut the circuit court vacancies more than in half. Today circuit court vacancies stand at 12, the lowest number of such judicial vacancies in more than a decade, indeed since the Republican effort to stall President Clinton's nominees and increase circuit court vacancies. By the end of President Clinton's administration, the Republican majority in the Senate had expanded those vacancies from 12 to 26. When I began the consideration of President Bush's nominees in the summer of 2001, circuit court vacancies stood at 32 and overall vacancies topped 110. Yet we get no credit or even acknowledgement from the Republican side of the aisle for all our efforts and accomplishments in cutting those vacancies. In fact, we are being penalized for doing a good job early and not following their pattern of building up massive vacancies before allowing nominations to proceed.

While I continue to process nominations in the last year of this President's term, we have already lowered the vacancies in the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Both the Second and Fifth Circuits had circuit-wide emergencies due to the multiple simultaneous vacancies during the Clinton years with Republicans in control of the Senate, some numbering as high as five. Both the Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit now are without a single vacancy after last week's confirmation of Judge Catharina Haynes. Circuits with no vacancies also include the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit and the Federal Circuit. That is five circuits without a single vacancy due to our efforts. Indeed, the only circuit that has more vacancies than it did at the end of the Clinton administration is the First Circuit, which has gone from no vacancies to one. The other three circuits, the Third, the Fourth and the Seventh have the same number of vacancies today that they had at the end of the Clinton administration. When we take action on the Agee nomination from the Fourth Circuit, even that circuit will be in an improved posture.

I am trying to make significant progress. I have made sure that we did not act as Republicans did during the Clinton administration when they pocket filibustered more than 60 judicial nominations and voted lock step against the confirmation of Ronnie White. I am also mindful that their bad behavior not simply be forgotten, and thereby rewarded. They have yet to acknowledge responsibility and accept any accountability for their actions. We have not engaged in a tit-for-tat. Rather, by cutting the vacancies as we have, we have taken a giant step toward resolving these problems, just as we are now on course to resolve the longstanding impasse in the Sixth Circuit. We have acted more fairly. I hope to be able to complete the restoration of the confirmation process during the next President's administration. We will then have overcome years of partisan rancor.

Mr. President, tomorrow, April 16, 2008, marks the first anniversary of the horrific incident at Virginia Tech that resulted in the tragic deaths of 32 students and faculty members and serious injuries to many other innocent victims. Our hearts go out to the victims' families as they mourn their loved ones who tragically lost their lives before their time. Our sympathies also go out to the survivors of this terrible incident, as well as the entire Virginia Tech community, whose resilient spirit and courage in the face of tragedy over the past year have been truly remarkable.

We cannot reverse the senseless violence of one year ago, nor can we repair all of the damage that the heinous acts of one very disturbed young man caused for an entire community. But one thing we can do to honor the victims and their families is ensure that our schools, colleges, and universities have the support and resources they need to protect our children.

Regrettably, 1 year after the tragic events at Virginia Tech, little has been done at the national level to address the dangers our students continue to face. Over the past 12 months, we have continued to see threatening conduct and, too often, deadly acts of violence involving students of all ages. Only yesterday we learned that several colleges were shut down as officials assessed graffiti messages threatening violence on campus. School lockdowns are becoming all too common in our communities.

A string of tragedies in just 1 week's time this past February reminded us once again that our students face more than merely threatening violent conduct. Between February 8 and February 14, at least four incidents at schools and colleges resulted in death or serious injury to students of all ages.

On February 8, a female student killed two other students, and then herself, inside a classroom on the campus of Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. Three days later, a student at Mitchell High School in Memphis, TN, was left in critical condition after a violent incident in the school's cafeteria. A day later, a 15-year-old boy at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, CA, was critically wounded by a classmate. He was later declared brain dead.

Then, on February 14, tragedy struck at Northern Illinois University. A former student opened fire in a geology class, killing 5 students and wounding 16, before killing himself. As hundreds of mourners remembered one of the Northern Illinois University victims at a funeral service, more than 1,000 Virginia Tech students--many of the same students who will grieve tomorrow for their lost friends, classmates, and professors--gathered in solidarity for a candlelight vigil in Blacksburg, VA.

Eight months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a step to make our schools and college campuses safer when it reported the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, S. 2084. Regrettably, the Senate has failed to take up and pass that bill to improve school safety. The 1-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech incident reminds us why this comprehensive legislation should be considered and passed without further delay.

In originating the bill more than 8 months ago, the Judiciary Committee showed deference to Gov. Tim Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and sought to complement their work and recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the committee originated this bill and reported it at the start of the 2007 academic year in the hope that Congress would adopt these critical school safety improvements last fall. We worked hard to get it done.

The incidents at E.O. Green Junior High, Mitchell High School, Louisiana Technical College, and Northern Illinois University are just a few of the tragic events that have claimed lives or resulted in serious injuries to students since the Virginia Tech tragedy. In the time since this bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, we have seen tragic deaths at Delaware State University and the University of Memphis and grievous injuries sustained by students and teachers at SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, OH. And there have been numerous lockdowns nationwide as a result of threatening conduct in our schools, including recent lockdowns at Fern Creek High School in Louisville, KY, and St. Peter's College in Jersey City, NY.

The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act would address the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill authorizes Federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions, including bulletproof vests, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act--which are designed to improve public safety.

Specifically, the bill would improve the safety and security of students both at the elementary and secondary school level and on college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a bill that Senator Boxer introduced right after the Virginia Tech tragedy, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include increased funding for much needed infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they occur.

To address the new realities of campus safety in the wake of Virginia Tech and more recent college incidents, the bill also creates a matching grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice.

The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at $50 million for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus.

The bill would also make sworn law enforcement officers who work for private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for death and disability benefits and for funds administered under the Byrne Grant Program and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. The leadership of Senator Jack Reed has been vital in this area.

The bill also helps law enforcement by making improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, LEOSA. These amendments to existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves, their families, and their fellow citizens wherever those officers may be.

The bill focuses on prevention as well, by incorporating the PRECAUTION Act at the request of Senators Feingold and Specter. This provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools.

Finally, the bill incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of

2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy.

The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Kaine to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--has issued its findings based on a 4-month investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill would adopt a number of recommendations from the Review Panel aimed at improving school safety.

We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives nationwide and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids. The Senate should move forward and act. I hope those who are holding up this legislation will reconsider their position today as we prepare to remember and to honor those who so tragically lost their lives, and those who had their lives changed forever, in the most deadly incident on a college campus in our Nation's history.

The Senate should move forward to invest in the safety of our students and to better support law enforcement officers across the country by considering and passing the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007.

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

We have been able to make some progress during the past 27 years to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. In particular, I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, Public Law 98-473, which established the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund allows the Federal Government to provide grants to State crime victim compensation programs, direct victim assistance services, and services to victims of Federal crimes. Nearly 90 percent of the Crime Victims Fund is used to award victim assistance formula grants and provide State crime victim compensation. These VOCA-funded victim assistance programs serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year, including victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse,

and drunk driving, as well as survivors of homicide victims. Our VOCA- funded compensation programs have helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime.

The Crime Victims Fund is the Nation's premier vehicle for supporting victims' services. It is important to understand that the Crime Victims Fund does not receive a dime from tax revenue or appropriated funding. Instead, it is made up of criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments.

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, I proposed and Congress passed the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1995. Among other important matters, this legislation authorized the Office for Victims of Crime at the Department of Justice to set aside an emergency reserve as part of the Crime Victims Fund to serve as a ``rainy day'' resource to supplement compensation and assistance grants to States to provide emergency relief in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass violence that might otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's crime victims compensation program and crime victims assistance services.

Over the last several years we have made sure that the Crime Victims Fund would remain dedicated to crime victims. We made sure that it would serve as a ``rainy day'' fund and reserve to help meet crime victims' needs. The ``rainy day'' fund has been used to make up the difference between annual deposits and distributions three times during the past 7 years. It provides security and continuity to crime victims programs and to our State partners.

Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has set a cap on annual obligations from the Crime Victims Fund. I have worked to ensure that the cap has never resulted in resources being lost to the Crime Victims Fund. I believe we need to increase the cap. With the failure of the Bush administration crime prevention policies, crime began to rise under Attorney General Gonzales. Crime victims, the States and service providers need more assistance.

Instead of taking that salutary action, the Bush administration is proposing to raid the Crime Victims Fund and zero it out. The future of the Crime Victims Fund is in danger because the Bush administration has proposed rescinding all amounts remaining in the Crime Victims Fund at the end of fiscal year 2009--just cleaning it out and leaving the cupboard bare. That would leave the Crime Victims Fund with a zero balance going into fiscal year 2010 and create a disastrous situation for providers of victims' services. That is wrong.

Over the last few years, we have successfully blocked the Bush administration's past attempts to raid the Crime Victims Fund. This is not a cache of money from which this administration should try to reduce the budget deficits it has created. It has turned a $5 trillion budget surplus into a $9.4 trillion debt. Its annual deficits run into the hundreds of millions. It is wrong to try to pay for its failed fiscal policies by emptying out the Crime Victims Fund. These resources are set aside to assist victims of crime.

In order to preserve the Crime Victims Fund once again, Senator Crapo and I, as well as 25 other Senators, sent a letter on April 4, 2008, to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking that the committee to oppose the administration's proposal to empty the Crime Victims Fund. We asked the Committee, instead, to permit unobligated funds to remain in the Crime Victims Fund, in accordance with current law, to be used for needed programs and services that are so important to victims of crime in the years ahead.

We need to renew our national commitment to crime victims. The Senate can help by recognizing the importance of the Crime Victims' Fund and supporting its essential role in helping crime victims and their families meet critical expenses, recover from the horrific crimes they endured, and move forward with their lives. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to honor our longstanding commitment to crime victims by working together to recognize and support victims of crime, and to preserve the Crime Victims Fund.

Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

How much time remains on the other side?

That is close enough; almost 100.

Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the consideration of another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Brian Stacy Miller for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Miller currently serves as a State appellate judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He previously served as city judge in Holly Grove, AR, was a deputy prosecuting attorney for Phillips County, AR, and worked for several years in private practice.

With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, Judge Miller will be the 88th African-American currently serving on our Federal bench and the 74th African-American serving as a district court judge.

I thank Senators Pryor and Lincoln for their consideration of this nominee, and I thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Today the Senate also considers another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Stanley Thomas Anderson for the Western District of Tennessee. Judge Anderson is currently a magistrate judge for the Western District of Tennessee. He previously worked in private practice as the founder and owner of Anderson Law Firm in Jackson, TN.

He served as a claims commissioner for the State of Tennessee Department of Treasury and as assistant commissioner for the Tennessee Department of Transportation. I acknowledge the support of Senators Corker and Alexander for this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench is that of James Randal Hall for the Southern District of Georgia. Mr. Hall is currently a partner at the Augusta, GA, law firm of Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.

He previously worked as corporate vice president and legal counsel for Bankers First Corporation and worked in private practice for several other Georgia law firms. Mr. Hall held the distinction of serving the people of the 22nd District of Georgia as a State senator.

I acknowledge the support of Senators Chambliss and Isakson and thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Then we turn to the consideration of yet another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--the nomination of John A. Mendez for the Eastern District of California. Judge Mendez currently serves as a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He previously served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California and worked in private practice.

With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, Judge Mendez will be the 58th Hispanic judge currently serving on our Federal bench and would become the only currently active Hispanic judge in the Eastern District of California.

I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. President, the Senate makes significant progress today by confirming yet another appointment to one of our important Federal circuit courts as well as four lifetime appointments of Federal district court nominations. The circuit court nomination we are considering is that of Judge Catharina Haynes of Texas. Her confirmation will fill the very last vacancy on the important court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but it is also a vacancy that has been listed as a judicial emergency.

I acknowledge the support of Senator Cornyn and his work with me to schedule her nomination. Senator Cornyn had the time to sit down and explain why she was important and brought her to my attention and helped me report it from the Judiciary Committee last week. I imagine Judge Haynes' first phone call if confirmed this afternoon, as I expect, will be to Senator Cornyn to say thank you.

Despite the progress we continue to make and will make today, some of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests that judicial confirmations is the most pressing and unsatisfied need facing our country. Now with an economic recession facing Americans, many would say already here, the massive job losses this year, and the home mortgage foreclosures and credit, any partisan effort to create an issue over judicial confirmations is greatly misplaced, and the American people can see through that facade.

The recent job loss reports from the Department of Labor are dramatic. In the first 3 months of this year the U.S. economy lost 232,000 jobs. March marked the greatest loss of jobs during 1 month in at least 5 years. Instead of adding the 100,000 new jobs we would need each month to prevent unemployment from rising further, we have experienced 3 months in a row of significant job losses. This year alone we are already half a million jobs behind where we need to be just to stay even and not lose economic ground.

Yet last week when I convened the Judiciary Committee to make progress on bills to help homeowners in bankruptcy and to improve the False Claims Act to better target fraud, the priority of the Republicans was none of these important legislative issues. Instead, they engaged in a back and forth on judicial nominations. This administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a small handful of controversial nominees--many, incidentally, who are not supported by their home State Senators--than they are about the jobs and lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. With that massive loss of jobs, the Nation's unemployment rate has risen dramatically to over 5.1 percent.

Let's take a look at where we are now. This is what has happened in this Presidency. Unemployment has gone up more than 21 percent during this Presidency. The price of gas has gone up more than 132 percent during the Bush Presidency. The number of uninsured has gone up 11 percent during the Bush Presidency. The budget deficit has increased $590 billion, going from a quarter of a trillion dollar surplus to a $354 billion deficit. The trade deficit has gone up 87 percent. All these things have gone up during the Bush Presidency. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have gone down 46 percent, from 9.9 percent to 5.3 percent. And a lot of that, a significant part of that, happened during a time when Democrats were in charge.

Just think about that. Now it costs more than a billion dollars a day to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive cost of the disastrous war in Iraq. Think about that, if you hear in your State you have a bridge that is somewhat dangerous but they can't afford to fix it. Think about that in your State, when you are told that Federal dollars to help law enforcement protect Americans from crime is no longer there because we have to send the money to the Iraqi police force, a police force that cannot account for thousands of the weapons that we gave them until some of them end up shooting at Americans. But somehow that money has to go to fix up Iraq, and we do not have it to fix up America. It has to go to Iraq while we are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline, and Iraq has a huge budget surplus from $100-a- barrel oil. They ask us to pay for the reconstruction, and to pay for it, we take the money from reconstructing America. That is a billion dollars a day, $365 billion this year that could be better spent not on Iraq but on priorities such as health care for all Americans, better schools, fighting crime, treating diseases at home and abroad.

In contrast, one of the few numbers going down as the President winds down his tenure is that of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies are less than half of what they were during the last Democratic administration, when the Republican majority in the Senate chose to stall consideration of scores of nominees and maintained these vacancies, when they pocket filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's nominees. They succeeded in doubling the number of circuit court vacancies during those years and those vacancies rose to a high of 32 with the resignations that accompanied the change of administration.

By contrast, Democrats have helped reduce circuit court vacancies across the country to as low as 13 in 2007. That is going to be the number of remaining circuit court vacancies today, after the confirmation of Judge Haynes. So that is half of what they were at the end of the last Democratic administration, when a Republican-led Senate was in charge.

During the last Democratic administration, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee argued that the 103 vacancies that then existed did not constitute a vacancy crisis. I guess he meant that when you had a Democratic President, it was not a crisis. He also argued on numerous occasions that 67 vacancies meant full employment on the Federal courts, if you had a Democratic President. After today's confirmation, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts will list 47 vacancies. That is 20 below what Republicans used to deem full employment, below half. We have cut in half the vacancy level they felt was appropriate for a Democratic administration. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, we acted faster and more favorably on more of this President's judicial nominees than any 17 months and either of the Republican chairmen who succeeded me.

During those 17 months the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominations. When I reassumed the chairmanship last year, the committee and the Senate continued to make progress with the confirmation of 40 more lifetime appointments of judges to our Federal courts. That is more than were confirmed during any of the 3 preceding years under Republican leadership and certainly more than were confirmed in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. What is the difference? A Democratic-led Senate did a lot better for a Republican President than a Republican-led Senate did for a Democratic President.

During this Presidency, while I have served as Judiciary chairman, the Senate will have proceeded after today to confirm 145 lifetime appointments in only 3 years, compared to 158 during the more than 4 years of Republican control. When the Senate confirms Judge Haynes today--here we are in April--we will have surpassed the total number of circuit judges confirmed by Republicans during the entire 1996 session. It was easy to do because a Republican majority refused to confirm even one of President Clinton's circuit nominees, not one. Indeed, the first confirmation of any judge that session didn't even take place until July 10, and that was a district court. So we are also 3 months ahead of the schedule followed by the Republican leadership during that presidential election year.

Some will undoubtedly repeat the partisan Republican talking point that the Senate must confirm 15 circuit judges for Congress to match a mythical statistical average of selected years. God love those mythical statistical averages. It is sort of like the man who puts one foot in boiling water and one foot in a block of ice and says: On average, I am pretty darn comfortable.

Well, it is true that during the last 2 years of this President's father's term, with a Democratic-led Senate, we confirmed an extraordinary number of circuit nominees: 20. It is true that during the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 17 circuit court nominees. So what they are saying is, if we are going to use an average, we are going to use an average only when the Democrats are in charge.

Maybe it would be different if after we set those high records-- Democrats with a Republican President--that even a little bit of that had been reciprocated. Well, it was not. Instead, the Republican-led Senate, with a Democratic President, made sure that judicial vacancies skyrocketed to historic levels. It actually got to the point that Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative Republican, weighed in publicly to criticize the Republican-led Senate.

Republicans do not talk about what they did. I do not believe they can bear an accurate comparison of what we have accomplished and what they did not.

So I wonder when the Republican leader and others who come to the floor with accusations about slow-walking nominations will explain their roles during the Clinton years--especially the over 60 they pocket filibustered, something joined by every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why was it that during the 1996 session--the end of President Clinton's first term--the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a single circuit nomination?

Why was it that Bonnie Campbell, the former attorney general of Iowa, who was supported by both Senator Harkin, a Democrat, and Senator Grassley, a Republican, was never even allowed to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, to say nothing about the full Senate, after her hearing?

Why was it that Kent Markus, of Ohio, a law professor, a former high- ranking Department of Justice official, who was supported by both his home State senators--both Republicans, incidentally--was never considered by the Judiciary Committee or this Senate?

Why was it that so many circuit vacancies were left without any nominees considered during the last years of the last Democratic administration when Republicans controlled the Senate?

I remember one. When I asked them about that one, they said: Well, we can't have her. We are not sure of her qualifications. That nominee is now the dean of the Harvard Law School--one of the most prestigious legal positions in America.

So Republican Senators have many questions to answer before they level accusations of any kind. To any objective observer, the answer is clear. The Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in hopes they would have a Republican Presidency. Vacancies rose to over 100. Circuit vacancies doubled. But as soon as a Republican President was elected, they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of the vacancies they prevented from being filled. Well, they have been extraordinarily successful. Currently, more than 60 percent of active judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this President.

Another way to look at their success and compare the better treatment shown to this President is to observe that the Senate has already confirmed more than three-quarters of this President's circuit court nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's circuit nominees confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate.

Now, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have turned the other cheek. I have worked hard to improve the treatment of nominees. To make progress, I even chaired the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the circuit nomination before us today during a congressional recess. I said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than the Republicans treated President Clinton's, and we have. We have not pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's judicial nominees, as was done to President Clinton's nominees. We have not opposed them in secret or anonymously. In fact, during my chairmanship, the views of home State senators, as reflected in the ``blue slips'' submitted to the committee, were made public for the first time. No more secret holds. We did not allow that. We have considered nominations openly and on the Record. We have proceeded with consideration of nominees whom I opposed, something that never happened under previous Republican leadership. If the Republican chairman opposed them, they never even got a consideration.

I am glad we have Judge Haynes here because if she is confirmed, then the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. I was almost worried whether she would get here.

Even though she was already on the Judiciary Committee's agenda, she appeared at a political, partisan function at the White House, where they were demanding that she be put on the agenda. Of course, she was already there. It had been noticed for a couple days. Then, when we were set to vote on her last week, Republicans almost filibustered her nomination. They talked so much, we virtually ran out of time, and I had to keep this committee in an extra 10 minutes; otherwise, she would not have been confirmed. It was then that I realized what was happening--just like in February, when they refused to show up and make a quorum throughout the whole month of February. If they had shown up, we would have passed out a number of judges. But they were planning to give speeches saying we are not passing out judges, so they would not show up to make sure that happened.

Mr. President, I will yield without losing my right to the floor.

That is right.

If the Senator will yield, they asked me several times, over a period of several weeks, to delay the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, who has been a tremendous help and a key member of our committee.

As I said before, if Judge Haynes is confirmed today, the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. We have proceeded despite the fact that 12 of the 16 active judges on this court have been appointed by Republican Presidents. I did this notwithstanding the fact that Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees. Judge Jorge Rangel, of Texas, Enrique Moreno, of Texas, and Alston Johnson, of Louisiana were all blocked. They were told they could not even have hearings because it was a Democratic President. We have not done that. Every one of these circuit court nominees has had a hearing and a vote. In fact, I have held hearings on all six of the Fifth Circuit nominees of this President during my chairmanship. With today's vote, the Senate will have voted on all of them.

Just understand this: Republicans would not hold hearings on President Clinton's nominees to that circuit. I have held hearings on them, and we have voted on them all. And we will hear these crocodile tears on the other side that: Oh, woe is me, we are not getting any circuit judges. Well, most of the time I have ignored it because it has been such balderdash that it is hard to think that anybody would believe it. But just in case somebody has been fooled by it, I thought we would put the numbers in the Record.

In fact, vacancies on the Fifth Circuit are at an alltime low--zero after today. Contrast this with the situation during the Clinton years, when the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared a circuit emergency because Republicans were pocket filibustering all of President Clinton's nominees. That circuit-wide emergency was due to multiple, simultaneous vacancies caused by the fact that the Republican-led Senate would not act on the nominees of a Democratic President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right to the floor, I be allowed to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

No. 1, I can't tell my dear friend from Nevada how much what he has said has meant. He has told me similar things in private as well as in public. He and I have been close friends for well over 20 years, and he knows of my huge respect and affection for him.

I chuckled as he put his finger on the issue, as he always does--the man from Searchlight shines the light on what happens--and talked about this kabuki show we saw this morning on the floor, criticizing me especially for moving judges. It kind of reminds me of what happened in February where we had markups to confirm judges and the Republicans would not show up. We wondered, why wouldn't they show up for their own judges? Why wouldn't they show up when they were given a chance to get out these judges? And then I find out. They were all giving speeches saying it is terrible we are not getting out judges. Well, if they had shown up, of course, the speeches could not be given. It is kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I said when I became chairman the first time and again the second time I would not do to them, or to President Bush, what they did to President Clinton and to us, and I have not. I do not intend to. I told the President that. But I would like to see a little bit of cooperation from the White House in working with home State Senators and in working with us not to get

idealogues that fit well in a fundraising letter, but instead to nominate people who are good for the Federal court.

So I can't tell the distinguished leader enough how much I appreciate his constant support throughout this whole thing.

Mr. President, as I said to the leader, I would still rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees the Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about controversial nominees to score political points. I will give an example. We have a State with a highly respected Republican Senator and a highly respected Democratic Senator, and they worked together to make recommendations that were completely out of any kind of partisan politics. They sent a list of several people who had gone through the screening committee, talked to everybody on the bar--Democrats, Republicans, people with no political affiliations--and said: Look, here is a list of the best people we could possibly find in our State. White House, you go ahead and pick whomever you want out of this group. We are happy with them.

They came and talked to me, and I said fine. I have huge respect for both the Republican Senator and the Democratic Senator, and I am sure we can move them through. Do my colleagues know what happened. The White House rejected that and sent up a totally controversial person. Again, the fundraising letters went out touting how we have to have this person. Both of the Senators said they would not return a positive blue slip; they wouldn't support this. It was not somebody they wanted to have on their record as supporting.

The White House finally withdrew that name. It went back to those Senators, and I am told by the Senators they have a nomination now that both will support for the circuit court of appeals, and that person will go charging through.

I recall another nomination this White House had made, strongly opposed by the two Senators, one of the more senior Members of the Senate, from their State. Those Senators said they did not want this nomination to go through and it did not. I still hear how terrible it was we did not confirm that nomination, even after the nominee pled guilty to criminal fraud.

I can think of other examples of people whom my Republican colleagues came and said: We really don't want to go with this person because of their situation back home--without going into a further description.

Now, Judge Catharina Haynes--and I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas on the Senate floor, Senator Cornyn--Judge Catharina Haynes is a former Texas State trial judge in the 191st District Court for the State of Texas. She currently works as a partner at the law firm of Baker Botts in Dallas--an excellent firm. The Fifth Circuit has played an extraordinarily historic role in the protection of civil rights in this country. As we moved from that terrible time in our history of segregation into civil rights for all, some of those judges were among the most courageous this Nation has known.

I wish I knew more about Judge Haynes's attitude about civil rights than her record and testimony reveal. But I listened to what the distinguished Senator from Texas said, and I vote in favor of confirmation with the hope that she will treasure and follow the example of earlier judges in that court who made such a passionate commitment to the rights of all Americans.

So I congratulate her and her family on what I expect will be her confirmation today.

We have five nominations. I had been told the leadership has been talking about having rollcalls. We still have a fair amount of time on both sides; am I correct?

Mr. President, because I have been asked by both Republican and Democratic Senators, with the American Airlines snafu and other things as we are trying to get flights out of here, I might ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania how soon he would be willing to start votes if I were to yield back all time.

Mr. President, I am going to talk to the Senators who have proposed these nominations. I have been a little bit more lengthy than normal, but that is after several hours that have been spent on the floor of the Senate being critical of me--I did not respond to that until now--just as a great deal of time was spent in the Senate Judiciary Committee being critical of me which I did not respond to; otherwise, we would not have Judge Haynes on the floor today because the Republicans would have filibustered her nomination.

So I will not quite yet withhold the balance of time. I am prepared, if people want, to begin these votes within the next 5 minutes and to work with--I understand a couple of the proponents of a couple of these judges are not going to require rollcall votes.

I want to be able to confirm that. If that is the case, I am prepared to begin in the next 5 minutes or so. I withhold the remainder of my time.

To answer that question, the Senator from Pennsylvania is one of the most articulate, best trial attorneys in this place. He could do in a minute what others would take an hour to do. I did try to take far less time than was used to attack me this morning.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request so we can move on?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate call up the nomination of Catharina Haynes of Texas to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, that the nomination be confirmed and sent to the President.

The Senator is talking about ways to move forward. I am asking by consent that we confirm by voice vote Calendar No. 515, Catharina Haynes to be a Fifth Circuit Judge.

Mr. President, is the Senator going to object?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both sides yield back their time and we begin with a vote on Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas, which will be a rollcall vote, and if rollcall votes are required on the subsequent nominations, that they be 10-minute rollcalls.

No. I should advise, I will ask, if time is all yielded back, for the yeas and nays on Brian Stacy Miller, but if the yeas and nays are requested on the subsequent nominees, that they be 10-minute rollcalls, although subsequent to the Brian Stacy Miller, the first one.

Why don't we begin with this nomination, and the distinguished ranking member, who is one of the closest friends I have in this body, and I may discuss that during that rollcall vote.

We just confirmed Senator Cornyn's nomination. Does he want us to undo that?

Let me do this. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 minutes of 6, all time be yielded back and the Senate go to a vote on the nomination of Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas.

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered on Brian Stacy Miller.

Mr. President, 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 3 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Texas.

I thank the Senator from Texas.

I believe we are ready to vote.

Vote on the Nomination of Brian Stacy Miller to be United States

District Judge

SENATE RESOLUTION 511--RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY McCAIN III, IS A

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I believe the mass is the Thursday after.

No. We are trying to make life easy. The Pope would like to make life easier for the majority leader.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak about the situation in Tibet, which has captured the world's attention in recent days and weeks.

For those of us who have visited Tibet, as I did in 1988, and for millions of people here and abroad, the press reports of Chinese police officers arresting and beating Tibetan protesters, and of Tibetans destroying the property of Han Chinese, are deplorable.

Estimates of the number of protesters killed have ranged from 13 to 140, and more than 1,000 arrested. Knowing the way Tibetans have been tortured and mistreated in Chinese prisons, we should be very concerned with the welfare of those in custody.

More than a dozen Han Chinese were reportedly killed and their businesses ransacked and burned. Violent attacks against civilians and their property cannot be justified, even when they may be prompted by longstanding, legitimate grievances.

For many years, the Chinese Government has been systematically implementing a strategy to destroy Tibetan culture and solidify its control of Tibet.

A flood of Han Chinese into Tibet has fueled an economic boom, but this has also exacerbated tensions between Chinese business owners and the Tibetans who have become increasingly marginalized and discriminated against in their own homeland.

When first asked about the recent violence, Chinese authorities in Beijing and Lhasa insisted that only a handful of agitators were involved and there was no cause for concern.

Then, as photographs were posted on the internet of Tibetans being chased and beaten bloody by baton-wielding, helmeted riot police, the Chinese Government blocked access for journalists and blamed the Dalai Lama for instigating the violence to sabotage the Beijing Olympics.

Many of us have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama. I consider him a friend, and last week I spoke by telephone with one of his advisors, Lodi Ghari, who was in India at the time. It is outrageous to suggest that the Dalai Lama has encouraged violence in Tibet.

For decades, the Dalai Lama has shown remarkable tolerance and patience as he has sought a peaceful resolution of the conflict over Tibet's political status. He has repeatedly extended a hand of friendship to the Chinese Government, which has consistently responded by denigrating and misrepresenting the Dalai Lama's views.

I would like to hope that this latest outbreak of violence will cause the Chinese Government to recognize that a strategy of repression in Tibet will only provoke further tensions and violence. Brute force is not a solution. Ethnic cleansing is not a solution.

Several things should be done immediately.

The Chinese Government should distinguish between peaceful protestors and rioters, and reaffirm that it will uphold the Chinese Constitution's protections of free speech and association.

It should end its lockdown on Tibetan areas, including allowing full access by the media, and account for those who are missing and dead from the protests.

There should be a full accounting of each Tibetan who has been arrested or charged with a crime, including names, charges if any, and the location where they are being detained. The International Red Cross should have access to monitor their treatment.

The only way to resolve this conflict is through dialogue conducted in good faith. It is long past time for Chinese authorities to recognize that it has nothing to fear from the Tibetan people if they respect the Tibetans' cultural identity.

There has been much talk and speculation about what these events could mean for the Beijing Olympics.

I am not among those who believe the Olympic Games should be a political issue. The Olympics should be about the athletes, not about governments.

If some countries boycott these Olympics for one reason, other countries will feel justified in boycotting other Olympics for different reasons. The future of the Olympic Games would be in jeopardy.

That said, the Chinese Government obviously sees the Olympics as an opportunity to showcase China as a modern, harmonious country. The Chinese Government's actions in Tibet, and its continuing crackdown on dissidents who call for more political freedom, starkly contradict this image.

Apparently, neither the Olympic Committee nor the White House impressed upon the Chinese authorities that if the Olympics were to be a success, there needs to be a marked improvement in China's respect for human rights. That message should be conveyed clearly, vigorously, and immediately. It is not acceptable for President Bush to simply say he plans to attend the Olympics as a ``sports fan.''

I have long criticized the Chinese Government's violations of human rights.

Its detention and trial on trumped up charges of dissidents who dare to criticize official corruption and repression.

Its use of excessive force in Tibet.

Its support for the Government of Sudan, even while that government was committing genocide in Darfur.

Its torture of prisoners and summary executions after unfair trials.

I, with former Senator Jeffords, and then Representative Sanders, worked for 6 years to secure the release from a Chinese prison of Ngawang Choepel, a young Tibetan whose only crime was to use a video camera to record Tibetan music and dance. He posed no threat to China's security. His arrest, his trial, and his imprisonment were a travesty.

Just last week, China convicted a human rights activist named Hu Jia of ``inciting subversion'' through his writings on the internet. His crime was to advocate for better protection for people with AIDS, for more religious freedom, and for increased autonomy for Tibet.

His case is another reminder that when it comes to human rights, little has changed in China. The Chinese Government insists that China is a country of laws and that his case was dealt with according to the law. That is reminiscent of those who once defended slavery because it was lawful at the time. As long as the Chinese Government criminalizes speech, it will face the criticism of the international community.

Criticizing the Chinese Government is not the same as isolating China, which I have never believed is an option. I have visited China several times and have always favored more engagement with China. We should be encouraging closer relations.

I have worked to increase funding for professional, educational, and cultural exchanges, and for programs focusing on environmental protection and the rule of law. I have seen the benefits to American and Chinese students who participate in these programs, including from the Vermont Law School.

China has an extraordinary history and culture. Its people have suffered many hardships, including devastating wars and famines. Many still toil from dawn until dusk to survive, but China has made extraordinary progress in the 30 years since my first trip there.

The Chinese people want the best for their families and their country, as Americans do. They also want a government that is less corrupt and more open and accountable.

China wants to be treated like a great power, but the Chinese Government cannot expect to be respected as a world leader just because of China's large population and its economic and military prowess. Not as long as it crushes peaceful dissent and, in Tibet, destroys the culture of a unique people who are admired throughout the world.

Other governments of countries where Tibetans have rallied peacefully in support of those back home should also stop the arrests and detentions and use of excessive force.

This is particularly so in Nepal, where not long ago tens of thousands of Nepalese people took to the streets in demonstrations which led to the restoration of multi-party government. Those who are in power in Nepal today, because of the people's brave defiance of a corrupt, abusive king, should be respecting the Tibetans' rights of assembly, of association and expression.

Speaker Pelosi, who visited the Dalai Lama recently, said it well when she called the crisis in Tibet a matter of conscience for the world.

But just as I believe our collective conscience must be steadfast in support of the Tibetan people and their spiritual leader, so should we reaffirm that we recognize this is a conflict the Chinese and Tibetans must solve themselves.

I believe a solution is possible that meets the needs and aspirations of both peoples. But after 6 years of talks that have achieved nothing, it is clear that a new approach is needed. Repression is not the answer. Confrontation is not the answer.

There are creative, visionary people on both sides who can learn from these events and pursue a new way forward. Those of us half a world away who care about Tibet and China should encourage that.

Unfortunately, rather than reach out directly to the Dalai Lama, the Chinese authorities are already tightening their control of Tibet. Apparently they have concluded that the lesson of this latest uprising is to increase the repression and claim that everything is back to normal.

Their idea of what is ``normal'' in Tibet is not the answer. If that is the path they take, it is only a matter of time before the next eruption of violence. And in the meantime, China will further jeopardize the Olympics and do more damage to its international reputation.

Nobody wants that. We want closer, cooperative relations with China.

Mr. President, let us hope that years from now, the 29th Summer Olympic Games will be remembered not for the violent images of recent weeks, and not for a hardening of positions, but as the catalyst for a new political dialogue that brought about a lasting agreement on Tibet's future.

Mr. President, at a time when we are all concerned with the fate of Iraqi refugees and the need to help as many of them as possible resettle in safe havens, I ask unanimous consent that a March 24, 2008, article in the Brattleboro Reformer entitled ``Difficult Choices: Son's Birth Deepens Couple's Concern Over Future,'' be printed in the Record.

This article illustrates what Vermonters are doing to help two Iraqi refugees, Revan Hedo and Aseel Pola, who recently gave birth to Brattleboro, Vermont's first Iraqi-American citizen, Matthew. As Vermonters and other Americans open their hearts, their homes, and their wallets to try to alleviate the suffering of Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homeland to escape the violence, it is an important reminder that no matter how one may feel about this war, there is a humanitarian dimension that requires everyone's attention. I am proud that Vermonters are doing their part.

We all hope that some day Iraq will be safe enough for those who want to return home to do so. But there are some 2 million Iraqi refugees stranded in Jordan, Syria, and other countries, and millions more displaced inside Iraq. Only a tiny fraction of those who need and deserve our help have received U.S. visas. This is unconscionable. I urge the White House to expedite the processing for resettlement of Iraqis whose lives are threatened because they had the courage to serve as translators, drivers, and provide other services to the United States. These people risked their lives for us, and they have every reason to expect that we will not abandon them.

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

Mr. President, as I listened yesterday to the partisan rhetoric we continue to hear from Senate Republicans on nominations, I am disappointed that the Republican leader is ignoring the majority leader's statement from last May 10.

Today is April Fools' Day. I do not think the American people are fooled or amused by continued partisan bickering over nominations. Indeed, with a massive subprime mortgage crisis that has left so many Americans in dire straights, fearful of losing their homes, the Republican efforts to create an issue over judicial nominees is misplaced. In fact, I have been working hard to make progress and have treated this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated those of President Clinton. Judicial nominations are not the most pressing problem facing the country. Indeed, we have worked hard to lower vacancies to the lowest levels in decades. We have cut circuit vacancies in half.

It should be no surprise that the administration would rather focus on having a partisan political fight than the news that, in February, the United States lost 63,000 jobs. To make up for those and other job losses in recent months thanks to this President's policies, this country would need to create 200,000 jobs every month. This administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a handful of controversial nominees, many without the necessary support of their home State senators, than the loss of jobs by thousands of American workers.

Unemployment is up over 20 percent, the price of gas has more than doubled and is now at a record high average of over $3.20, trillions of dollars in budget surplus have been turned into trillions of dollars of debt with an annual budget deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the trade deficit has nearly doubled to almost $1 trillion. Indeed, just to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive costs generated by the disastrous war in Iraq--the fifth anniversary of which we tragically marked 2 weeks ago--costs more than $1 billion a day. That is $365 billion each year that would be better spent on priorities like health care for all Americans, better schools, and fighting crime and treating diseases at home and abroad.

Perhaps the only thing that has gone down during the Bush Presidency is judicial vacancies. After the Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in anticipation of a Republican Presidency, judicial vacancies rose to over 100. Circuit vacancies doubled during the Clinton years. Since I became Judiciary chairman in 2001, we have worked to cut those vacancies in half.

In the Clinton years, Senator Hatch justified the slow progress by pointing to the judicial vacancy rate. When the vacancy rate stood at 7.2 percent, Senator Hatch declared that ``there is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis'' and that this was a ``rather low percentage of vacancies that shows the judiciary is not suffering from an overwhelming number of vacancies.'' Because of Republican inaction, the vacancy rate continued to rise, reaching nearly 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term. The number of circuit court vacancies rose to 32 with retirements of Republican appointed circuit judges immediately after President Bush took office.

Then, as soon as a Republican President was elected they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of the vacancies they prevented from being filled during the Clinton Presidency. They have been extraordinarily successful over the past dozen years. Currently, more than 60 percent of active judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this President. The Senate has already confirmed three- quarters of this President's circuit court nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's.

I was here in 1999 when the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee would not hold a hearing for a single judicial nominee until June. In contrast, we have scheduled 3 hearings on 11 nominees so far this year. We have a circuit nominee from Texas listed on the Judiciary Committee agenda this week. I wrote to the President during the last recess commending him for nominating someone for a Virginia vacancy to the Fourth Circuit who is supported by Senator Warner and Senator Webb, a Republican and a Democrat, and indicated that I would use my best efforts to proceed to that nomination as soon as the paperwork is submitted. I will ask that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. In that letter, I also informed the President that an anonymous Republican hold had prevented Senate confirmation of the President's nominees to be the Associate Attorney General, the No. 3 position at DOJ, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

Since the resignations of the entire top leadership at the Department of Justice last year in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era, I have made restoring the leadership ranks at the Department a priority. Since September, the committee has held seven hearings on executive nominations, including a 2-day hearing for the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General have been confirmed. But for Republican delays in refusing to cooperate and make a quorum in February, and now the anonymous hold, the Senate would have confirmed two more high-level DOJ nominees.

The partisan rhetoric on nominations rings especially hollow in light of the progress we have made. Last year, the Senate confirmed 40 judges, including 6 circuit judges. The 40 confirmations were more than during any of the 3 preceding years with Republicans in charge. The Senate has now confirmed 140 judges in the almost 3 years it has been run by Democrats and only 158 judges in the more than 4 years it was run by Republicans.

We continue to make progress. Four district court nominations are pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. I have mentioned the nomination to the Fifth Circuit that is pending on the Judiciary Committee's agenda this week. I have already announced and noticed another hearing this Thursday for four more judicial nominees, two from Virginia and two from Missouri, and for the nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy. This will be the Judiciary Committee's fifth confirmation hearing this year.

With respect to the recent nomination of Steven Agee to a Virginia seat in the Fourth Circuit, it is regrettable that Justice Agee's nomination only comes after months of delay when the White House insisted on sending to the Senate the nomination of Duncan Getchell. That nomination did not have the support of either of the Virginia Senators and was withdrawn after the Virginia Senators objected publicly. In fact, the delay in filling that vacancy has lasted years because this President insisted on sending forward highly controversial nominations like William Haynes, Claude Allen, and Duncan Getchell.

In my letter to the President, I wrote that I expect the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to proceed promptly to consider and confirm Justice Agee's nomination with the support of Senator Warner and Senator Webb, just as we proceeded last year to confirm the nomination of Judge Randy Smith to the Ninth Circuit, once the President had withdrawn his nomination for a California seat and resubmitted it for a vacancy from Idaho. I urged the President to use the Agee nomination as a model for working with home State senators and Senators from both sides of the aisle. Time is running short.

Senate Democrats should not and have not acted the way Republicans did by pocket filibustering more than 60 of

President Clinton's nominees. I would rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees that the Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about controversial nominees who he selects in order to score political points. I would also rather see the Senate focus on addressing the real priorities of the country rather than catering only to an extreme wing of the Republican base with controversial nominees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this weekend, Marcelle and I will attend an event at the University of Minnesota Law School to honor the life and career of Vice President Walter Mondale on the occasion of his 80th birthday which he reached in January.

Vice President Mondale is a valued friend whom I proudly consider one of my mentors in the Senate. As I reviewed materials for this weekend, I came across an editorial by Vice President Mondale that appeared in the Washington Post on July 27, 2007 entitled ``Answering to No One.'' The editorial provides an excellent perspective on the Office of the Vice President and how that office evolved in recent history.

In order to remind all Senators and their staffs about this insightful article, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Congressional Record.