Executive Session
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the nomination of Susan Carney to serve as an appeals court judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, one of our most distinguished appeals court panels among the Federal circuits. I hope the Senate will move swiftly to confirm her to fill one of the open seats on this critically important court.
Ms. Carney has truly impressive credentials for appointment to the Federal bench. She graduated cum laude from Harvard College in 1973 and magna cum laude from the Harvard Law School in 1977. She then went on to clerk for Judge Levin Campbell on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
She currently serves as deputy general counsel for Yale University, one of the country's great institutions of higher learning, and previously served as an associate general counsel for Yale. In her capacity at Yale, she advises the university on a wide range of legal issues, some of them complex and challenging, relating to intellectual property, international transactions, and commercial matters.
Ms. Carney's time at Yale has exposed her to a broad array, a diverse swath of Federal law, giving her a breadth of experience that truly qualifies her to serve on the Second Circuit, which handles Federal appeals on legal issues arising within New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. In various matters, Ms. Carney has advised Yale in reaching very successful results, and that experience will serve her well on the bench. Her experience as an advocate has given her a perspective that will give her the kinds of qualities--a respect for other advocates who come before the court, a respect for the legal principles at stake, for the factual findings of courts below--and of all the considerations that are so critically important to ability and integrity on the Federal court of appeals.
She spent 17 years working as a private practice attorney in Washington, DC, and Boston, and there, too, she represented a wide array of clients on major issues, including, for example, the Major League Baseball Players Association and a Tennessee union that stopped work due to its employees' exposure to uranium. In the Tennessee court, the NLRB determined that striking employees could not be replaced, and the DC Circuit issued a similarly posited verdict.
As impressive as her commercial and private litigation is is her commitment to pro bono public service work. She engaged in such work throughout her time as a lawyer, offering free legal counsel to pro bono clients and even volunteering as a tutor. Her commitment to the community as well as appropriate legal representation for all clients demonstrates a real respect for the legal system and the fairness, the fundamental fairness of the legal system that I believe should be and is broadly shared by members of the Federal bench.
Her nomination comes at a particularly pressing and challenging time for the Second Circuit. The vacancy she is slated to fill has been designated as a ``judicial emergency.'' The vacancy has existed since October 10, 2009. There are two open seats from Connecticut on this court, which is currently more than 15 percent understaffed. So the arrival of Susan Carney to the Second Circuit will have immediate impacts. It will help immediately to address the understaffing problem and the work burden that has accumulated as a result of it. It will ensure that this caseload can be addressed quickly and efficiently.
We hear in this body the famous saying that ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' Truly, it is often justice denied if it is delayed. In practical circumstances, people have a right to their day in court, which includes a day in the court of appeals. In the Federal courts, that appeal is generally one of right, it is not discretionary, and to deprive people of that right is truly a denial of justice.
I have been impressed since I came to the Senate by the good faith that has been shown by both sides in working to address this growing judicial vacancy issue. Some have thought it an epidemic. In many circuits, it has been characterized as a ``judicial emergency,'' and it has been spurred by respected figures from across the spectrum, from Chief Justice Roberts to Attorney General Holder. The Senate has been moving very responsively and responsibly to address this issue.
I am hopeful that this nomination of Susan Carney and others that will follow, as some have preceded it, will lead to a new era in addressing the judicial vacancy problem throughout our Federal courts. The American people expect us to work together, just as they expect the courts to give them justice. So far, I have been encouraged to see Members of both parties working in the Senate to act expeditiously on these nominations, some of them very long delayed. I hope the Senate will continue this trend with the swift confirmation of Susan Carney to the Second Circuit.
BIG OIL PROFITS
On the issue of emergencies, I would like to address a second topic.
Over the last decade, what we have seen is a pattern of rising profits on the part of oil companies. The emergency for consumers is one of rising prices now.
I believe we have an obligation to ensure fundamental fairness in our Tax Code by eliminating, in effect, the tax subsidies and loopholes and giveaways that are such an offense to the justice and fairness of our system.
In spite of the big five oil companies earning more than $1 trillion in profits, they have enjoyed tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, which are unconscionable, they are unacceptable, and they must end.
That is the purpose of the legislation we are going to consider later today. I strongly support it in the interest of consumers, but, more importantly, in the interest of taxpayers and to repair a part of our deficit.
While families and businesses in Connecticut are paying more than $4.25 a gallon, putting a strain on all of our family budgets, the big oil companies continue to rake in record profits and continue to enjoy subsidies that put a dent in our fiscal situation. The companies made over $30 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone, representing a 50-percent increase in profits from last year.
The long and short of this debate is, big oil doesn't need these subsidies. They don't need the help of American taxpayers to do exploration or any of the other activities that are involved in producing the profits they enjoy so abundantly.
Ending these subsidies, despite claims to the contrary, will not increase prices at the pump and, instead, will provide for basic fairness so Americans no longer have to pay for these giveaways and tax breaks to some of the most profitable companies in the world.
People in my home State of Connecticut and across the country remain concerned about reducing our debt and deficit. We cannot do it if we have this plethora of subsidies and giveaways and breaks going to special interests and corporations, such as Big Oil, which simply don't need it.
Ordinary Americans, in Connecticut and elsewhere, are struggling to stay in their homes, find jobs, keep their families together and they regard these subsidies as offensive to fundamental fairness and they are right.
I urge this body to act later today in eliminating those loopholes and subsidies.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source