[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6118-6124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

       NOMINATION OF DENNY CHIN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Denny Chin, of New York, 
to

[[Page 6119]]

be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 60 minutes, equally divided, on this 
nomination.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, yesterday the Senate was forced to devote 
the entire day to so-called ``debate'' on two nominations that 
Republican objections had stalled for months. The good news is, the 
majority leader's filing of cloture motions to end the filibusters on 
these nominations succeeded. The votes took place. Each was confirmed 
with more than 70 votes, a bipartisan majority of the Senate. The 
debate amounted to statements by Senators in support of the 
nominations. Let me emphasize that. The only people who spoke, spoke in 
support of the nominations. During the entire day, not a single 
Republican Senator came to the floor to oppose the nominations, nor did 
a single Senator come to the floor to explain why there have been 
months of delay that left a key office of the Justice Department 
without a head for the last year. None came to explain why their 
objections left a longstanding vacancy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit.
  Instead, there was silence. There is no explanation for what 
continues to be a practice by Senate Republicans of secret holds and a 
Senate Republican leadership strategy of delay and obstruction of 
President Obama's nominations. That is wrong.
  Throughout the week, a number of Senators have come before the Senate 
to discuss this untenable situation. They have asked for consent to 
proceed to scores of nominations that are totally noncontroversial. Yet 
Republicans objected because, after all, these nominees had committed 
the horrible sin of being nominated by a Democratic President. It makes 
no sense. I am in my 36th year in the Senate. I have never seen anybody 
treat any President, Republican or Democratic, in this way.
  Pursuant to our Senate rules which were enacted after bipartisan 
efforts, those Republican Senators who are objecting have an obligation 
to come forward and justify those objections. I am going to be 
interested to see which Senators are objecting to proceeding on 18 
judicial nominees. Eighteen nominees who were reported unanimously--
every Democrat, every Republican in support of them from the Judiciary 
Committee--and then they are held by these secret holds. I will be 
interested in knowing what basis there is for not proceeding on those 
18 nominees. In fact, I would like to know why we can't proceed to the 
11 Justice Department nominees who were reported without objection--
U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and Directors of important institutes 
and bureaus within the Justice Department. Most of these people are 
involved with critical law enforcement matters. These stalled 
nominations extend back into last year, even though they had unanimous 
support from the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. Even 
though most of them are in key law enforcement positions, they have 
been stopped, they have been held up, they have been stalled. This is 
wrong, and it should end.
  Today, the Senate has another opportunity to make progress by 
completing action on the long-stalled nomination of Judge Denny Chin of 
New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is 
the circuit of the distinguished Presiding Officer and of this Senator. 
The vacancy he has been nominated to fill, which has been delayed by 
some anonymous Republican objection, has been classified as a judicial 
emergency by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 
It is not unusual. There are 40 other judicial emergency vacancies and 
judges being held up. It is one of the four current vacancies in the 
Second Circuit's panel of 13 judges. All are judicial emergencies. 
Almost one-quarter of the court is being held vacant. That is wrong.
  It reminds me of the years during the Clinton administration when 
similar Republican practices led to Chief Judge Winter, himself a 
Republican, having to declare the entire circuit an emergency in order 
to continue to operate with panels containing only a single Second 
Circuit judge. That is wrong. During that era, we had 61 pocket 
filibusters of a Democratic President's judges. That is wrong.
  Yesterday, Republicans insisted on 3 hours of ``debate'' before a 
vote on Judge Vanaskie and another 3 hours of ``debate'' for a vote on 
Professor Schroeder, but none of them came down to debate. Then they 
were both confirmed by overwhelming margins. We should be thankful that 
today they have insisted on only 1 hour before this long overdue vote. 
I will be interested to see whether a single Republican Senator comes 
to speak in opposition of Judge Chin's nomination or to explain why 
they have delayed this vote for 19 weeks.
  The Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to report Judge Chin's 
nomination last December--all Republicans and all Democrats. None of 
the Republican Senators serving on the committee opposed it--not 
Senators Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, or Senator 
Coburn. Not one. He is an outstanding district court judge. He has the 
strong support of both of his State's Senators and a number of 
conservative leaders. Yet his nomination has been stuck on the calendar 
since December. He has been waiting 133 days for the Senate to act. 
Contrast this with the practice Democrats followed during the first 2 
years of the Bush administration when we proceeded to vote on his 
circuit court nominations, on average, within 7 days of their being 
reported by the Judiciary Committee. Now we wait 133 days and more.
  This dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of 
prompt and routine consideration on noncontroversial nominations has 
led to a backlog of nominations and a historically low rate of judicial 
confirmations, and it damages the integrity of our courts. Our Federal 
system of judges has been the envy of most other countries because we 
keep them out of politics. Here we are sinking them into politics.
  In fact, by this date in President Bush's Presidency, the Senate had 
confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, 
only 19 Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been 
allowed by the Republicans. This is despite the fact that President 
Obama began sending judicial nominations to the Senate 2 months earlier 
than President Bush did, so the Senate is way behind the pace we set 
during the Bush administration.
  In the second half of 2001 and through 2002 the Senate confirmed 100 
of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given Republican delay and 
obstruction this Senate will not likely achieve half that. Last year 
the Senate was allowed to confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and 
district court judges all year. That was the lowest total in more than 
50 years. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 
100.
  Judge Chin is a well-respected jurist who is widely celebrated for 
one of his most newsworthy decisions in which he sentenced Ponzi scheme 
operator Bernard Madoff to 150 years in prison. He previously served 
for 4 years as a Federal prosecutor, and he spent a decade as a lawyer 
in private practice. You would think they would be saying: Why don't we 
move forward with the man who sentenced Bernie Madoff? It is almost as 
if we are punishing him for going after Bernie Madoff.
  In fact, Judge Chin's impressive track record garnered the respect of 
former judge and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who wrote to 
the Judiciary Committee: ``I believe him to be an intelligent and 
highly qualified nominee, who brings to the job not only experience but 
also demonstrated good judgment and skill. He . . . [has] a temperament 
that has shown him to be both firm and fair.''
  James Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General and the former U.S. 
Attorney in the Southern District of New York, echoed this praise. ``In 
a district with many fine trial judges, he was a star--smart, fair, 
honest, careful, firm, apolitical, and a brilliant writer. . . . 
[W]hile always in control of the proceedings, he never lost the sense 
of humility that allowed him to listen to an

[[Page 6120]]

argument with an ear toward being convinced and to give all a fair 
hearing,'' wrote Mr. Comey.
  Judge John S. Martin, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote 
to emphasize that Judge Chin ``is an exceptionally able lawyer'' and a 
``decent and thoughtful individual . . . who has earned the respect of 
those who have appeared before him.''
  When Judge Chin is confirmed today, he will become the only active 
Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court. He 
was also the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a U.S. district 
court judge outside the Ninth Circuit.
  I cannot understand the stall of this nomination. It is time that we 
get to work. Let's move the people who should be moved forward. Let's 
get on with our job. After all, the American public pays us well to do 
this job. They pay us to vote yes or no. They don't pay us to vote 
maybe. With all of these stalls, we are saying we want to vote maybe. 
Come on, let's have the guts to vote yes or no.
  Today I look forward to congratulating Judge Chin and his family on 
this historic achievement. I commend both Senator Schumer and Senator 
Gillibrand for their persistence in supporting this important 
nomination and bringing this matter to fruition. His confirmation is 
long overdue.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the confirmation of the nomination of Denny Chin to be a U.S. circuit 
judge for the Second Circuit occur at 12 noon today, and that the time 
until then be divided as previously ordered; further, that the other 
provisions of the previous order remain in effect, and that upon 
confirmation, the Senate then return to legislative session and proceed 
to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak 
therein for up to 15 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                      Financial Regulatory Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in the fall of 2008, I reluctantly 
voted for a bill that sent taxpayer money to Wall Street banks that 
should have paid for their own mistakes. We were told it was needed in 
order to avert a global calamity. So I did it. Then I went back to my 
constituents and vowed: Never again. Never again should taxpayers be on 
the hook for recklessness on Wall Street, and no financial institution 
should be considered too big to fail.
  So when the financial regulatory bill the majority was about to bring 
to the floor last week still contained a number of loopholes allowing 
future bailouts, I raised the alarm. I wasn't about to take Democratic 
assurances that this bill protected taxpayers. I wanted them to prove 
it. That is what this debate is all about. It is about proving to my 
constituents and to the rest of the country that we actually do what we 
say we are going to do around here because if you haven't noticed, 
there is a serious trust deficit out there. Public confidence in 
government is at one of the lowest points in half a century. Nearly 8 
in 10 Americans now say they do not trust the government and have 
little faith it can solve America's ills. And it is no wonder.
  Over the past year, the American people have been told again and 
again that government was doing one thing when it was doing another. 
Just think about some of the things Americans have been told.
  As a Senator, the current President rallied against deficits and 
debt. He said America has a debt problem and that it was a failure of 
leadership not to address it. Yet last year, his administration 
released a budget that doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 
10. The debt has increased over $2 trillion since he took office. In 
February, the Federal Government ran the largest monthly deficit in the 
history of the United States.
  How about the bailouts? The President said he didn't come into office 
so he could take over companies. But whether or not that is the case, 
Americans can't help but notice that some people did better than 
others. When it came to bailing out the car companies, the unions fared 
a lot better than anyone else.
  What about jobs? Last year, the White House rushed a stimulus bill 
through Congress because it said we needed to create jobs. They said we 
needed to borrow the $1 trillion it cost the taxpayers to keep 
unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Well, more than a year later, 
unemployment is hovering around 10 percent. All told, we have lost 
nearly 4 million jobs since the President was sworn in.
  Then there was health care. I will leave aside the substance for a 
moment and just talk about the process. Americans were told the process 
would be completely transparent, that all the negotiations would be 
broadcast live on C-SPAN. Instead, they got a partisan back-room deal 
that was rammed through Congress during a blizzard on Christmas Eve.
  This is the context for the debate we are currently in. So it should 
come as no surprise to anyone that when we are talking about a giant 
regulatory reform bill, the American people aren't all that inclined to 
take our word for it when we say it doesn't allow for bailouts or that 
it will not kill jobs or that it won't enable the administration to 
pick winners or losers. They have heard all that before, and they have 
been burned. This time, they want us to prove it.
  The first thing they want us to prove is that this bill ends 
bailouts. That was the one thing this bill was supposed to do, and if 
this bill didn't do anything else but that, a lot of people would be 
satisfied. The administration has said it wants to end bailouts. I say 
to them: Prove it.
  Some of us have pointed out concerns that this bill would give the 
administration the authority to use taxpayer funds to support financial 
institutions at a time of crisis. Yes, the bill says taxpayers get the 
money back later, but that sounds awfully familiar. Isn't that exactly 
what we did with the first bailout fund--a bailout fund Americans were 
promised would be repaid but which Democrats are now trying to raid in 
order to pay for everything else under the Sun?
  If a future administration thinks there is a crisis that requires 
using taxpayer funds, then they should have to get permission from the 
taxpayers first. It is not enough for someone in the administration to 
say it is so; they need to come to Congress before they write the 
check. If this bill isn't like the first bailout, prove it.
  As I said, we have seen in other bailouts that some are treated 
better than others. This bill appears to enable the same thing by 
allowing the FDIC to treat creditors with equal claims differently. If 
the proponents of this bill think this bill does not allow the 
administration to pick winners and losers, they need to prove it.

[[Page 6121]]

  This bill also contains a number of provisions that threaten the 
ability of small businesses to hire new workers. Other provisions would 
send jobs overseas. And just this morning, the Wall Street Journal 
pointed out a provision that would put new regulatory burdens on 
startup businesses that would make it harder for them to get off the 
ground. If this bill doesn't create new burdensome regulations that 
will make it harder for Americans to dig themselves out of this 
recession, then prove it. Prove it.
  Every indication is that the chairman and the ranking member are 
making progress in their discussions and that this bill will have 
needed improvements. That is good. Some of the concerns I have just 
raised are among the topics being discussed. But in the end, Americans 
are not rooting for some deal. They have asked us for clarity. They are 
asking us, not for verbal assurances but for concrete proof, because at 
the end of the day I need to be able to look my constituents in the eye 
and prove to them that this bill does not allow for any bailouts. I 
need to prove to them that this bill doesn't treat some favored groups 
better than others. I need to prove to them that this strengthens the 
economy, that it doesn't make it worse.
  People need to be convinced that we are doing what we are saying we 
are doing. This time they want proof and, frankly, I don't blame them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Stalled Nominations

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I know we have a vote scheduled at 12 
noon on a nomination. I know that is but 1 of 100 nominations that are 
on the calendar awaiting action by the Senate. It is probably not very 
surprising that people do not think much of this place when we cannot 
get nominations through, we cannot get business done. But people should 
understand the reason there are 100 nominations waiting on this 
calendar is because the minority has decided to say no to everything, 
just to dig in their heels and decide they are not going to cooperate 
on anything.
  This afternoon I will again come to the floor and ask unanimous 
consent on the nomination of GEN Michael Walsh. I just wanted Senator 
Vitter from Louisiana to be aware that I intend to do that again.
  Let me say I am going to be back this afternoon to talk about the 
START treaty and also to talk about financial reform and a couple of 
issues that are important to me, particularly the issue of too big to 
fail and the issue of, what I call just gambling on naked credit 
default swaps. I will talk about both of those this afternoon.
  But when I come this afternoon, I am going to ask unanimous consent 
on the nomination or the promotion of General Walsh. Let me again 
describe why this is important.
  General Walsh is a decorated American soldier, served 30 years in the 
U.S. Army. He now commands a division of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. He has served in wartime. He has served in Iraq. Six months 
ago, on a bipartisan vote, unanimous vote, the Armed Services Committee 
decided to promote this general to major general, give this one-star 
general a second star. And 6 months later, this general has not been 
promoted. This person with a distinguished Army career has not received 
his promotion. His promotion has been derailed by one Member of the 
Senate. That Member has the right to object, and so he has objected to 
the promotion for this general.
  My point has been that the objection to promoting a general with a 
distinguished wartime record and a distinguished record for 30 years is 
an objection based on a demand from one Member of the Senate that the 
Corps of Engineers do something that the Corps of Engineers has already 
told the Senator it does not have legal authority or legal ability to 
do.
  As I have indicated on two other occasions, I do not come to the 
floor to criticise another Member by name. I have never done that 
before by name. But I did tell Senator Vitter from Louisiana that I 
intended to do that. As a matter of courtesy, I wanted him to know. I 
think it is wrong. I think it is a horribly bad decision for him to 
decide that he is going to hold up the promotion of a general who 
served this country for 30 years because he is demanding certain things 
for New Orleans and Louisiana the Corps of Engineers says it cannot do 
and does not have the legal authority to do.
  Let me say as the chairman of the subcommittee that funds all of the 
water issues, and there are plenty of water issues in Louisiana--I know 
because I have been involved in it--we have sent billions and billions 
and billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money to New Orleans 
and Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I am pleased we 
have done that because they were hit with an unprecedented natural 
disaster called Hurricane Katrina.
  So I was one of those who helped, who helped do some of the lifting 
to get the money to New Orleans and Louisiana. But our colleague 
indicated the other day that he is unhappy with the U.S. Government's 
response down in Louisiana.
  Well, I would simply say to the folks in New Orleans and Louisiana: 
You know what life would be like were this money and were the Corps not 
down there with the billions of dollars that have now been spent. I 
think it is important to understand the value of that cooperation and 
the value of that partnership.
  I understand there are some things about which people disagree. One 
of the issues raised by my colleague is an issue of the pumping 
stations down there. There is a disagreement about how they should 
proceed. He is demanding they proceed with a study in the manner that 
he determines it should proceed. My point is, the Appropriations 
Committee has already voted against that and said: We will not do it. 
No. 1, it costs more; and, No. 2, it provides less flood protection. So 
we are not going to do that.
  To demand that be done, which the Corps does not have the authority 
to do at this point, and as leverage for that demand to hold up for 6 
months the promotion of a distinguished soldier who has served in 
wartime, I think, is unbelievable.
  So this afternoon I will come again and ask unanimous consent once 
again that this soldier get the promotion that he is owed and deserves. 
Senator John McCain, Senator Carl Levin, the ranking member and the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, both support this promotion. 
The entire Armed Services Committee voted for it unanimously, and yet 6 
months later this soldier is not promoted.
  I can understand people using a lot of leverage around here for 
various things. I have used some leverage myself on certain things. But 
I do not understand someone using the career of a soldier to make 
demands that cannot possibly be met. If he continues to do that for 6 
or 16 months, the situation will be the same as it is now because the 
Corps of Engineers cannot do what the Senator from Louisiana is 
demanding they do.
  It is simply, in my judgment, using this soldier's career as a pawn. 
That is terribly unfair to any uniformed soldier who serves this 
country, especially a soldier who has gone to war for this country. So 
this is fair notice that I will ask unanimous consent. I assume it will 
be somewhere in the 4 or 5 o'clock range today. My expectation is that 
the Senator from Louisiana will be on the Senate floor at that point. 
My hope is he would not object.
  Finally, at long last, my hope is that he will allow the Senate to do 
the right thing and give this soldier's career and this soldier's 
promotion the due that it is owed by this Senate.
  As I said, I am going to come back later today. I want to talk at 
some length about the START treaty, which I think is very important. I 
was in Moscow, Russia, within the last week and a half taking a look at 
global threat reduction initiatives that we are

[[Page 6122]]

working on with the Russians. It is very important that this START 
treaty be ratified by the Senate. I note that there are some of my 
colleagues saying: The only way we will ratify the START treaty, the 
only way we would support that and not block that would be if we get 
dramatic new monies for new nuclear weapons or something of the sort.
  So I am going to talk about that today. I also am going to talk about 
the financial reform bill, which is now staring us in the face, and 
about, as I mentioned, the issue of something that sounds like a 
foreign language, but it is not: naked credit default swaps. That is 
not a foreign language; that is flatout gambling that has been done by 
the largest financial firms in the country that steered America right 
into the ditch. It is very important they be dealt with, and dealt with 
the right way in financial reform.
  Also, I am going to talk about the issue of too big to fail. In my 
judgment, if you are determined to be too big to fail, then, in my 
judgment, you are too big. I believe divestiture is an important part 
of the solution to that. I will talk about that more this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                               Earth Day

  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to say to my friend, I thank him for bringing 
the issue of the promotion of an Army Corps general to the floor today. 
I support his remarks. I support moving forward on that promotion.
  Madam President, April 22 is Earth Day. It has been 40 years since 
then-Senator Gaylord Nelson first advocated setting aside a national 
day to focus on our environment. We have learned a lot in those 40 
years. What we have learned is, it is very rewarding to protect and 
defend our environment. What we have learned is, when we do that, and 
we do it in the right way, we create millions of jobs and an economy 
that is very prosperous.
  One very clear example of that is, take my California coastline. It 
is an economic driver. It is beautiful. It is an economic driver 
because people want to see it in all of its beauty. They want to enjoy 
its beauty. They spend a lot of dollars on tourism to come and visit my 
coast. They go to the restaurants. They go to the stores. That is why 
we have always argued against our colleagues who want to go and 
destroy--potentially destroy--that magnificent coastline, which is a 
gift from God, in my humble view.
  It is interesting because the first Earth Day was inspired by a 
horrible oilspill that hit Santa Barbara, and the whole country saw the 
devastation, what happened to the wildlife, what happened to the ocean, 
what happened to the people there.
  Ever since that time we have been taking a moment to take a deep 
breath. By the way, breathing clean air is also an important part of 
Earth Day to actually appreciate this incredible gift that we have been 
given and to rededicate ourselves to the preservation of our 
environment.
  In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire. Swaths of the Great 
Lakes were lifeless dead zones. Air in our cities was very unhealthy. 
All that happened in that year that then-Senator Gaylord Nelson decided 
to act on Earth Day.
  When Senator Nelson took a trip, a plane trip, and looked down at the 
devastation of the awful Santa Barbara spill, he realized we needed a 
day to celebrate the Earth and to dedicate ourselves to protecting 
these gifts we have been given. Twenty million Americans rallied to 
celebrate the first Earth Day the following year in April 1970.
  I think it is important to note that protecting the environment has 
been a bipartisan thing here, at least up until recent times. The 
Environmental Protection Agency opened its doors in November of 1970. 
It was Richard Nixon who signed that law. The Clean Water Act became 
law in 1972, the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, the Toxic Controlled 
Substances Act in 1976.
  We have seen dramatic improvements in the air we breathe, the water 
we drink, and, again, very good growth in our economy over this period. 
We saw the gross domestic product rise from $4.26 trillion in 2005 
dollars, in 1970, to $12.9 trillion. That is a threefold increase in 
the GDP during the time we had these great environmental laws on the 
books.
  So when the next politician stands up and says: You are going to 
devastate the economy, let's show him or her that is not so. If we take 
the lead--lead is a neurotoxin. When we keep it out of the area of our 
children, we know their IQs have gone up. It has been proven. We know 
what lies before us, clean energy. We know if we can get carbon 
pollution out of the air, it is going to unleash twice as many dollars 
from the private sector into finding new technologies, clean energy 
technologies. It will get us off of that addiction to foreign oil, $1 
billion a day. We will make products in this country that the whole 
world wants.
  The world is going green. Why should we step back and allow China to 
make all of the solar panels? Why should we step back and allow Germany 
to make all of the windmills? They have taken over the lead from the 
United States of America.
  I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again. I want to see them 
on products, clean energy technology products. I hope we will recommit 
ourselves to protecting this environment.
  Today, we have a tremendous opportunity before us in clean energy. 
When we move forward to address the challenge of climate change, we 
will create millions of jobs and protect our children from dangerous 
carbon pollution. Most importantly, clean energy will move us away from 
our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, which is costing us a billion 
dollars a day and making our country less secure.
  America should be the leader in creating clean energy technologies 
that are made in America and work for America.
  It will mean manufacturing jobs for people who build solar panels and 
wind turbines; it will mean jobs for salespeople who will have a world-
wide market for these American made exports.
  It will mean jobs for engineers, office workers, construction 
workers, and transportation workers too.
  But today, other countries are moving quickly to take advantage of 
the enormous opportunities to manufacture and sell the solar, wind, 
geothermal and other clean energy technologies that will power the 
world in the coming decades.
  Venture capitalists tell us that when we pass clean energy and 
climate legislation, it will unleash a wave of private investment that 
will dwarf the capital that poured into high tech and biotech combined. 
That means new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs for 
American workers.
  Colleagues on both sides of the aisle are working on legislation to 
step up to the clean energy and climate challenge, building on the work 
we have done in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I look 
forward to working with them as this process moves forward.
  This Earth Day, we have an unprecedented opportunity to reinvigorate 
our economy, create jobs, and put America on a new course to recovery 
and prosperity. Let's remember the lessons of the past and seize this 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
nomination of Judge Denny Chin to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit. Judge Chin is, first and foremost, a highly 
qualified and experienced nominee to one of the busiest courts in the 
country.
  Judge Chin's life story speaks volumes about his own talent and 
determination, but also about the opportunities that this country 
offers--opportunities that made it possible for him to make the journey 
from Hong Kong, through Hell's Kitchen, to New York's best schools and 
now to the Second Circuit.
  No one could be more qualified. No one could have a more impeccable 
record on the district court. And, he has the bonus of providing needed 
diversity to our appellate bench.
  Nonethless, after passing him out of committee unanimously, my 
Republican colleagues required the majority

[[Page 6123]]

leader to file cloture on his nomination. It took 4 months--4 months--
to get an up or down vote on him. It is good for the court system and 
the country that we are finally doing it this morning.
  He has been a sitting judge in the Southern District of New York for 
15 years, during which time he has presided with exceptional skill over 
some of the most challenging and important cases in the country.
  Judge Chin is a quintessential New Yorker: He graduated from our best 
schools--including Stuyvesant High School and Fordham University Law 
School--and practiced there his entire career. His family emigrated 
from Hong Kong to America when Judge Chin was just 2 years old. His 
father worked as a cook and his mother worked as a garment factory 
seamstress in Chinatown. He grew up in a cramped tenement in Hell's 
Kitchen with his four siblings. He later practiced in New York as both 
a private lawyer and a Federal prosecutor.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, I have applied the following 
criteria to each nominee for the federal bench: Is he excellent? Is he 
moderate? And will he bring diversity to the bench?
  On excellence: Besides his obvious academic and professional 
credentials, Judge Chin has earned a unanimous well qualified rating 
excellent by ABA.
  But more important than this, in my book, are the views of his peers 
who come in contact with him every day. Few judges have earned the 
accolades that litigants have given Judge Chin, whether they have 
experienced his courtroom in victory or defeat.
  For example, in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary--which compiles 
evaluations of judges from practitioners--lawyers describe Judge Chin 
as ``a judge's judge,'' ``conscientious,'' ``extremely hard-working,'' 
``very bright,'' and ``an excellent judge.''
  In short, no one--no one--questions Judge Chin's excellence, his 
intellect, or his temperament.
  On moderation: There is more than one way to evaluate Judge Chin's 
moderation.
  First, he is a tough, but fair, sentencing judge. In an observation 
that is emblematic of Judge Chin's moderation, one attorney has even 
said of Judge Chin: ``[h]e is a decent human being but he doesn't let 
that influence his sentencing.''
  Judge Chin is, in fact recently best known for sentencing Ponzi 
scheme operator Bernard Madoff. In a case that could have been a 
complete circus, that involved hundreds of victims who lost every penny 
they had, Judge Chin ran the proceedings with dignity and efficiency 
and sentenced Madoff to the highest possible sentence.
  Judge Chin said:

       The message must be sent that Mr. Madoff's crimes were 
     extraordinarily evil and that this kind of irresponsible 
     manipulation of the system is not merely a bloodless 
     financial crime that takes place just on paper, but that it 
     is . . . one that takes a staggering human toll.

  In addition, Judge Chin has said explicitly that he believes in a 
modest, moderate role for judges. In his 1994 questionnaire that he 
submitted during his confirmation to be a district court judge, he 
wrote:

       My view is that judges ought not to legislate; that is not 
     their function. Judges interpret and apply the law, keeping 
     in mind the purposes of the law.

  Finally, Judge Chin has plenty of bipartisan support. His nomination 
garnered glowing letters from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey 
and Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney John Martin, who hired him 30 
years ago and has practiced before Judge Chin. He had not a single vote 
against him, Democrat or Republican, in committee.
  On the topic of diversity: It goes without saying that Judge Chin's 
confirmation would improve the diversity of the Federal appellate 
bench. He already has the distinction of being the only Asian American 
judge to serve on the Federal district court outside of the Ninth 
Circuit. With his confirmation, he will be the only currently active 
Asian American appellate judge on the Federal bench.
  So, let us proceed to approve Judge Chin without further delay, and 
keep one of the busiest dockets in the Federal judiciary functioning 
smoothly. I am proud and pleased to have a role in this historic moment 
for our Federal courts.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in 
strong support of the nomination of fellow New Yorker, Judge Denny 
Chin, to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit. Judge Chin has a distinguished legal career, having dedicated 
the majority of his life to public service and education. His 
experience in the court room spans more than a decade as a litigator, 
and over 15 years as a Federal judge.
  When he was 2 years old, Judge Chin moved with his parents from Hong 
Kong to New York, where he later attended Stuyvesant High School. 
Through hard work, he was able to attend Princeton University, where he 
received the Athlete Award from the National Football Scholarship 
Foundation and graduated magna cum laude. After graduating from 
Princeton, Judge Chin attended Fordham School of Law, where he earned 
his juris doctorate and became managing editor of the Fordham Law 
Review.
  As impressive as his educational background is, Judge Chin has 
enjoyed an equally notable legal career in public service and private 
practice, beginning with a job clerking for U.S. District Judge Henry 
Werker in the Southern District of New York for 2 years. He then spent 
another 2 years at Davis Polk & Wardwell before resuming his commitment 
to public service at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of New York. As a Federal prosecutor, Judge Chin honed his 
litigation skills by arguing cases in the U.S. District Court and the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following his time at the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Chin went back into private practice, 
working as a litigator and a partner at several law firms in New York, 
and also as a solo practitioner, becoming a specialist in employment 
and commercial law.
  In 1994, Judge Chin was the first Asian American appointed to Federal 
district court outside the Ninth Circuit, where he has served for 15 
years. During his time on the bench, Judge Chin has presided over more 
than 4,700 civil and 650 criminal cases, issuing more than 1,500 
opinions. He has served as designated judge on the Second Circuit Court 
of Appeals on 84 appellate cases, of which nine decisions are his 
written opinions. Notably, Judge Chin presided over the high profile 
trial of Bernard Madoff, whom Judge Chin ultimately sentenced to 150 
years in prison for defrauding billions of dollars from New Yorkers and 
individuals from across the United States.
  Judge Chin has demonstrated a strong commitment to education and the 
next generation of the legal profession as a professor of law for more 
than 23 years at his alma mater, Fordham University's School of Law. He 
has contributed to legal scholarship by publishing seven law review 
articles and is frequent speaker at bar associations, law schools, law 
firms, corporations, and non-profit organizations. In 2009, he received 
the Professor of the Year Award from the Fordham Law School Public 
Interest Resource Center, and previously was awarded the Fordham Law 
School Alumni Association's Medal of Achievement in 2006. He currently 
cochairs the Fordham Law School Minority Mentor Program.
  Judge Chin's dedication to public service extends to community 
leadership, and he is actively involved in local community and in legal 
associations. He is a member of the Second Circuit's bar association, 
the Federal Bar Council, formerly serving as the President, and 
currently serving on the Public Service Committee. Prior to assuming 
the bench, he also served on numerous community boards, including the 
Brooklyn Center for Urban Environment, Care for the Homeless, Hartley 
House, and St. Margaret's House. Upon assuming the bench, Judge Chin 
remained involved in his local community by becoming a member of 
numerous cultural organizations in New York. The outstanding dedication 
he demonstrated throughout his career and years of community 
involvement has led to numerous awards

[[Page 6124]]

and honors--such as the J. Edward Lumbard Award for Public Service from 
the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New 
York, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the New York State 
Division of Human Rights.
  The American Bar Association gave Judge Chin its highest rating, as 
he is an exceptional and highly competent judge. He has always followed 
a thoughtful, reasoned approach to each case, strictly adhering to the 
application of facts and legal precedent.
  There are currently 129 judicial nominees waiting to be confirmed by 
this Senate. It is unfortunate that when there are such highly 
qualified nominees as Judge Chin, they cannot be quickly voted on so 
that they may begin to handle the many critically important cases that 
are currently pending in our Federal courts.
  In conclusion, Judge Denny Chin possesses the judicial temperament, 
breadth of legal knowledge, and commitment to justice, civil rights, 
and the rule of law necessary for this appointment. He is well 
qualified, and I am confident that he would make an outstanding judge 
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to support his confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Denny Chin, of New York, to be U.S. 
circuit judge for the Second Circuit?
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     DeMint
     Kaufman
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President shall 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________