Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the PATRIOT Act, and then do I have to have consent to do anything else other than that?

OK. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak about two issues.

I just want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the PATRIOT Act and to state I am on an amendment Senator Leahy has authored which has bipartisan support. I think Senator Leahy's amendment puts a couple of checks and balances in this bill that I think are essential. But I hope we do not have delays because delays would cause trouble for law enforcement people and for the work we are doing to make sure we continue making progress against those who would harm this country.

I fully agree with the statements we have the balance of security and liberty, and I think the Leahy amendment goes a long way toward that. But, again, we need to give law enforcement the tools they need.

House Budget

Mr. President, as we look at what is ahead for us this week, it is not only the PATRIOT Act, but we also are going to be looking for votes on a couple of different budget proposals, and I want to spend some time talking about the Republican budget that passed the House that was originally authored by Representative Paul Ryan. It sort of got to be known as the Ryan budget, but let's be very clear about this: It is no longer the Ryan budget. It is the Republican budget.

This is why I say this. Out of all the Republicans in the House--and there are a lot of them over there; they run the place; well over 100-- every one of them voted for this budget except for, and on our side, not one Democrat.

So let's be clear what a budget is. I served on the Budget Committee in the House and in the Senate. A budget is a very important document, whether you write it in your own home for your own family or you write it in the Senate of the United States. Why? Because in a budget you are looking at all your resources and what your priorities are.

If you have an issue with spending--which a lot of us have in our homes, as well as having it right here; we know that; and certainly in my State--this is when the rubber meets the road and you have to say: What is important to us and what is less important?

The questions you ask when you write a budget around here are: Are our children important? The answer is, yes. Is it important we have clean air to breathe? For me, absolutely. Should the water be pure? Should we make sure the environment is protected? Yes. Should we have a transportation system so we can move people and goods in this century and be the economic world leader? Yes. That is an investment. We go through the budget piece by piece and we decide what is crucial.

Of course, we need a strong military. Having said that, some of us believe it is time to wind down the two wars we are in in Afghanistan and Iraq that is costing us $12 billion a month. We can use those funds back home and still keep the kind of counterterrorism forces we must keep, I believe, in the region and bring that money home.

There is a lot of talk, a lot of words are thrown around about how to balance a budget. I have to say, I was fortunate enough to be here, thanks to the good people of my State, during the Clinton years, and we had similar issues. What were the issues? We were running in the red. We had a deficit, we had a debt, and we had to make sure the economy kept growing in a robust fashion. Do you know what we did? We sat around and said: These are the investments that are important to us.

Today I would argue it is still education, it is infrastructure, it is the environment, it is clean energy. Those are what will move us forward. Over here are the issues where we look out and say: How can we get some revenue? One of the ways is what the Democrats said the other day. We said it is time to end corporate welfare for the biggest oil companies in the world that are--listen to this--two, three, and four on the Fortune 500 and are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse. Can I say that one more time? These big multinational oil companies that are charging us an arm and a leg are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse or a truckdriver or a firefighter in an effective tax rate. That is the truth. But yet and still, the power of those special interests looms over this Chamber, and we were not able to end that corporate welfare and start to reduce this deficit.

So there are places to go to reduce the deficit. I say, start by eliminating corporate welfare for the people who do not need it. Start by asking billionaires and multimillionaires to pay their fair share. Then we do not have to hurt the people of this country, the great middle class of this country, the children. But every day in every way, that is what these battles are about.

So today I want to talk about the Republican budget and just look at it from the standpoint of Medicare and look at it from the standpoint of seniors and, more specifically, look at it from the standpoint of women on Medicare who make up 56 percent of those on Medicare.

Thank goodness the people in this country are tuning in to this debate. They are tuning in. A lot of what we say here just flies over the country and no one pays attention. It is complex, it is wonky, and the rest. This is an easy one. The Republican budget kills Medicare as we know it. Pretty simple. People are asking themselves across this Nation: Do they want to kill Medicare as I know it?

Senator Mikulski, who has just arrived on the Senate floor, has organized the women. In the next 5 minutes I will summarize what I said and turn to her.

The Republican budget is a disaster for seniors and for those on Medicare. It is worse than a disaster. Newt Gingrich said, 15 years ago: Let Medicare wither on the vine. That means starving it. The Republican budget just kills it outright. They lost patience with that idea. The Republican House-passed budget brings a devastating cost to seniors for Medicare.

Let me show you the cost. Listen to this: The average income of senior women in this country in a year is $14,430. The health care cost they will have to pay under the Ryan budget is almost all that money, $12,500. So the Ryan Republican budget devastates Medicare and says to a senior woman, who makes $14,000 a year, that her health care costs are going to cost her $12,000.

What is she going to do with the other $2,000? Well, that would be probably, if she is fortunate, maybe 3 months' rent; in California, 1 month's rent. Then what does she do? Starve? I will tell you what she will do. She will not have health coverage.

This is America under the Republican vision? Going back to the days where our senior citizens had no dignity? I just cannot imagine it. I cannot imagine it.

The woman earns $14,000. She is supposed to spend $12,000 on health care. Forget it. She is not going to do it. Who in their right mind would ask a woman--a senior woman, who worked and played by the rules, who more than likely is a widow, who is living off Social Security--who in their right mind would ask her to face double--double--the cost of health care she now pays? I will give you the answer. House Republicans. That is what they voted for. I am not making it up. This is what they voted for.

Now you have people running away from it, running toward it. They do not know which way to go on it. But do you know what. When we vote, I hope they run far away from this because this is a disaster.

Let me show you another chart. This Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it, and it takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to this guy. Who is this guy? He is very happy. Behind him is a chart that says: ``Health Care Profits.'' On the other side it talks about the CEO of the company and his income. The House Republican budget takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to the insurance company. Imagine. Do you know what this guy makes, the average CEO of a health insurance company? Mr. President, remember, I told you the average senior woman makes $14,000 a year. He makes $12.2 million a year. Oh, hooray for the Republicans. They are taking a benefit away from a woman who has lived by the rules, who has raised a family and stood by that family, and in her golden years they take away her money and they give it to this fat cat over here. It makes me ill. But I better watch out because the next thing you know, they will take away my health care, and where will I go?

Profits in these companies are up 41 percent from the previous year. Every once in a while a political party stands for something that shows who they are, and I think we are seeing it here. They voted to continue corporate welfare for the biggest multinational oil companies that are just running to the bank, and their CEOs make more than this guy by a few million. Now, this week, we are voting on their budget, which gives more to the CEO of an insurance company and steals it away from the average senior woman.

The last chart I am going to show is this one: There is a health care benefit in place for senior citizens who are on Medicare. By the way, I was very disturbed when we voted for it because in that bill, at the insistence of the Republicans, we told Medicare they cannot negotiate for reasonable drug prices, and that is the way it went down. It was very sad.

Having said that, we have a benefit for senior citizens now. One of the leaders in trying to make sure they get their full benefit has been Senator Stabenow, who is joining us now in the Chamber.

So I will close with this: What we did in our health care reform budget is to say that seniors will now be covered for basically all of their health care costs. The Republican budget cancels that out, and they now say seniors have to pay for all of their prescription drugs. Even with their insurance, there will be this period of time: the uncovered benefit called the doughnut hole. People call it different things. That means immediately--if the Republican budget passed now--my seniors in California, who are in that category getting help on their prescription drugs, 400,000 of them, would have to pay $9,000 more over the next decade--$9,000 more--for their prescription drugs.

Mr. President, I have given you just a bit of the picture of what the Ryan budget does. I have just focused on the Medicare piece. That whole budget--the Republican budget, started by Ryan, embraced by the Republicans--is a disaster for seniors, for women, for children, and it is a hot time in the old town tonight for big CEOs of health insurance companies. That is what it is, and we should bring it down.

I am happy to now yield for Senator Mikulski, who will have the time in her own right.

I say to Senator Mikulski, thank you very much for your leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the remarkable accomplishments of Granada Hills Charter High School's Academic Decathlon team, which won the 2011 Academic Decathlon and its first national championship. Members of the national championship team include: Austin Kang, Harsimar Dhanoa, Elysia Eastty, Joon Lee, Shagun Goyal, Riki Higashida, Eugene Lee, Sindhura Seeni, and Celine Ta. The team is coached by Matt Arnold, Nick Weber, and Spencer Wolf.

Each year, hundreds of high schools throughout the Nation compete for the honor of becoming Academic Decathlon national champions. This year, Granada Hills Charter High School earned the distinction of winning its first national championship, as well as California's 9th consecutive national title and 18th overall championship.

Competing in an Academic Decathlon is a daunting task. Students spend many hours studying, practicing, and competing, often away from their family and friends. The Academic Decathlon's intense 2-day national final competitions include testing at seven different events, speeches, essay writing, and interviewing exercises. As the Granada Hills community celebrates the hard work and achievement of the Granada Hills Decathlon team, I invite all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating California's Granada Hills Charter High School Academic Decathlon team on becoming the 2011 National Academic Decathlon Champions.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the students from the 6th grade class at Mecca Elementary School, who are visiting Washington, DC. I am particularly honored to have these students visit the U.S. Capitol because they know firsthand how important it is to speak up and be heard to make government officials aware of vital issues that affect their community.

Like all Americans, the residents of Mecca, CA, have the right to expect that the air they breathe is clean, and that the Federal and State government will enforce the Nation's environmental laws to protect them from dangerous pollution. Unfortunately, some residents in Mecca became sick from overpowering air pollution coming from a nearby waste recycling facility. The noxious odors posed a public health risk to the two schools located

near the site, Mecca Elementary School and Saul Martinez Elementary School.

I became involved because local citizens, including teachers and students at the two schools, spoke out about the public health threat in Mecca that needed to be addressed immediately. I am so pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency stepped up its efforts to clean up the air pollution in and around the community of Mecca.

I give special thanks to the residents of Mecca, including the students at Mecca Elementary School, for speaking up and telling the truth about the troubling conditions nearby. It is an example to all Americans that we have a stake in our communities and that by fighting for what is right, we can make our country a better, safer and healthier nation.

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

Mr. President, it is my privilege, it is my honor, to support Goodwin Liu, a Californian--and a brilliant Californian--who has been nominated by the President to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And what a fine nomination this is. I thank the President for his belief in Goodwin, and his, I think, amazing perception that this is a young man--and he is young, he is about 40. This is a young man who is just exceptional, is a perfect example of the American dream, and someone who has worked so hard to put himself into this position where he was nominated for this great honor.

I want to show folks a picture of Goodwin. He is a very special and talented person. He has had a long struggle with this nomination, which we will talk about. I also wish to thank, of course, Chairman Leahy for working hard to bring this nomination to the Senate floor, and Senator Feinstein, my colleague, for her hard work in the committee and her leadership in helping to shepherd this nomination in the Senate.

This vote is not only historic, because Goodwin will make history--if he gets this vote. This vote is long overdue. First, let me talk about why it is historic. It is historic because if we get the 51 votes we need today, Professor Liu will be one of only two Asian Americans currently serving as a Federal appellate judge in the United States. There is currently only one Asian American among the 160 active judges on the Federal Courts of Appeals, and there is no active Asian American judge on the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population.

Let me repeat that. There is no active Asian American judge on the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population. The beauty of our great Nation--one of the beauties--is our great diversity. America is great because we are representatives of so many faiths and so many ethnic backgrounds. We know all of our institutions, whether it is here in the Senate or anywhere, all of our institutions do better when they have a diversity of views and diversity. Clearly, when someone as brilliant as Goodwin gets this nomination, we should be so proud in this body. We should be joining hands over party lines. We should be pleased that our court would have such a brilliant member.

Professor Liu was originally nominated in February 2010 for a judicial emergency seat, one that has been vacant since January 2009. So we have had a judicial emergency, and yet we have had a hard time getting this vote to the floor.

Chief Justice Roberts called on Senators not to play politics with our nominees. He warned that ``delays in filling vacancies have created acute difficulties in some judicial districts.'' Undoubtedly, the Ninth Circuit certainly is one of the jurisdictions that Chief Justice referred to because the Ninth Circuit is the Nation's largest and busiest appellate court in the country, accounting for over 20 percent of all new appellate cases in the country, according to court statistics.

Now, I have said--and I heard Senator Cardin, and I thought he just did a beautiful job of laying out why he is supporting Goodwin Liu. But I also heard some other comments that did not connect to Goodwin Liu. I heard comments that just did not fit what Goodwin Liu has said about his role as a judge.

So I wanted to put up a couple of the quotes directly from Professor Liu and what he said about his role as a judge. He said:

I think the role of the judge is to be an impartial,

objective, and neutral arbiter of specific cases and

controversies that come before him or her. And the way that

that process works is through absolute fidelity to the

applicable precedents and the language of the laws, statues,

regulations that are at issue in the case.

Another statement by Professor Liu I wanted to share with you. He said:

If I were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process,

it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of

constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate

appellate judge. The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully

follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of

Constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. And

so that is exactly what I would do, is I would apply the

applicable precedents to the facts of each case.

It could not be clearer. So if you hear any colleague of mine saying something else about how Professor Liu views the role of a judge in this particular appellate area, just refer them to these quotes.

Professor Liu has sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee twice for more than 5 hours--5 hours--answering any and all questions posed to him during the hearing. He has also answered numerous written questions from committee members. He has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee three times.

I just ask the American people, as they tune in to this debate--they may not be familiar with the confirmation process--if they think it is fair for someone like Professor Liu--and we will put his picture back up so we personalize this--this young man, this husband, this father, this teacher, to have to sit for all of those hours, and then to finally be brought to the floor, after the third time we voted it--that is why I praised Senator Leahy for doing this again because sometimes there are reasons that we go back and back and back. There are reasons of fairness and justice and because we do not want to miss an opportunity to put someone like Professor Goodwin Liu on the bench.

Now, I will tell you, there have been 12 months of attacks on Goodwin Liu, misrepresentations, unfounded distortions of his record. I want the American people to know this. Politics is tough. I can tell you, running four times for Senate, it is tough. It is brutal. It is ugly. But there is no reason to turn that venom on a nominee like this, and it is offensive to me.

Through it all, Professor Liu could have said: You know what, I cannot take this. I do not need this. My kids do not need this. My family does not need this. But he showed courage and character and dignity.

I was so pleased when President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu to serve on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because Goodwin Liu is considered one of the brightest legal scholars not just in California but in the Nation. He is a respected authority on constitutional law.

At UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of law, where he is an associate dean and a professor, he is admired widely for his writings and his devotion to his students.

To Professor Liu, if you are watching these proceedings, I am proud of you. To Professor Liu's wife, Ann, and his two small children, Violet and Emmett, I say thank you for your patience and your unyielding support. You should be so proud of your dad.

Let me tell you a little bit about Goodwin Liu's background. He was born in Augusta, GA, the son of Taiwanese immigrants who came to this country to practice medicine in underserved areas.

In 1977, they moved to Sacramento, where his parents were primary care physicians for over 20 years. In Goodwin, his parents instilled both perseverance and a strong work ethic, even leaving math problems on the kitchen

table every day of the summer to supplement his school work. As a high school student, he pulled all-nighters studying the dictionary to expand his vocabulary and raise his SAT scores. His hard work paid off, propelling him to Stanford University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and then to Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes scholar.

I say to my colleagues on the other side, who often say it ought to be the results of your life that count, it ought to be your record that counts, it ought to be your qualifications that count--Stanford University, Phi Beta Kappa, Oxford University Rhodes scholar.

Liu's experience at Stanford and Oxford in student government, as a summer school teacher for low-income youth, codirecting a K-12 youth education conference, and studying philosophy encouraged him to pursue the law and public service. In fact, Liu spent the next 2 years at the Corporation for National Service helping to launch the groundbreaking AmeriCorps program. He led the agency's effort to build community service programs at colleges and universities throughout the country, and he traveled to over 30 States to encourage service among students.

The spark of public service and the law clearly ignited, Liu then went on to attend Yale Law School. His stellar record of achievements continued at Yale, where Liu, along with a classmate, won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition. Several of his papers won awards, and he earned prestigious clerkships on both the court of appeals and the Supreme Court.

What more does anyone want from a nominee? I can't even imagine, frankly, even matching this.

In between the clerkships, Liu again chose public service, working at the U.S. Department of Education, helping to implement a congressional appropriation to help turn around low-performing schools. Former South Carolina Governor Richard Riley, who was Secretary of Education at the time, called Liu a `` `go-to' person''--in his words--``for important projects and complex issues because of Liu's ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems.'' What else do you want in a judge? He has an ``ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems.'' That is a quote from former South Carolina Governor Richard Riley.

After completing his Supreme Court clerkship, Liu joined the litigation practice at O'Melveny & Myers, working on a wide range of business matters while maintaining an active pro bono practice. So you have a person who worked in government, private practice, and in education. He earned high praise from his peers, including Walter Dellinger, chair of O'Melveny's appellate practice, who said Liu was ``widely respected in law practice for his superb legal ability, his sound judgment and warm collegiality.''

Then Liu joined the faculty at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law in 2003 and quickly established himself as an outstanding teacher as well as a constitutional law and education law and policy expert.

Think about this. This is a young life, with all these experiences, including raising a family.

In the classroom, Liu is popular and well regarded. His introductory constitutional law course is consistently one of the most oversubscribed at Boalt. They want to hear him. They want to be in his presence to understand how the Constitution works and why this country is so special. In 2009, Liu received UC Berkeley's Distinguished Teaching Award, the university's most prestigious teaching excellence award, and was selected by that year's graduating class to be commencement speaker.

Students often remark on Liu's efforts to illustrate the impact of the law on everyday life. As anyone who has taken his con law class knows, to demonstrate that principle, Liu uses a wedding photo that shows him and his new bride, Ann O'Leary, the Irish American daughter of a social worker and union leader from Orono, ME. The two married in Virginia, a State that restricted interracial marriages until the Supreme Court invalidated the provision in the landmark 1967 case Loving v. Virginia.

Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley describes Professor Liu this way:

Goodwin Liu is an outstanding teacher, a brilliant scholar,

and an exceptional public servant.

Professor Liu is widely respected and has tremendous support across the legal spectrum and from both sides of the political aisle.

I want to read what Ken Starr said about Goodwin Liu. Remember Ken Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor? This is what he said. He wrote this with Professor Amar in an op-ed piece that ran:

In our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in

the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee, such

as Goodwin, are professional integrity and the ability to

discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law.

Because Goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest

degree, we are confident that he will serve on the Court of

Appeals not only fairly and competently, but with great

distinction. We support and urge his speedy confirmation.

I point out to my Republican friends that Ken Starr is one of your heroes. Come on, listen to what he says about Goodwin Liu. Don't come to the floor and say things about Goodwin that aren't so. Please come to your senses about Goodwin Liu.

There is another supporter I want to talk about too. This is former Bush administration counsel, Richard Painter:

I have done my share of vetting judicial candidates and

fighting the confirmation wars. I didn't know much about Liu

before his nomination, but I became intrigued by the

attention the nomination generated, and I wondered if his

Republican critics were deploying the same tactics Democrats

used to attack Republican nominees. They were. If anything,

the attacks on Liu have been even more unfair. Based on my

own review of his record, I believe it is not even a close

question that Liu is an outstanding nominee whose views fall

well within the legal mainstream.

That conclusion is shared by leading conservatives who are familiar with Liu's record. We even have a quote from Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute, one of the most conservative institutes. They endorsed Liu. This is what they said:

Because of his fresh, independent thinking and intellectual

honesty, as well as scholarly credentials and experience, he

will serve with distinction on this important court.

If that is not enough for my Republican friends, I have some more. I have former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. He offered praise of Professor Liu's ``commitment to the Constitution and to a fair criminal justice system.'' Barr also noted that ``[Liu's] views are shared by many scholars, lawyers and public officials from across the ideological spectrum.''

Tom Campbell of California, a former Republican Congressman--someone who actually attempted to run against me a couple of times for the Senate--wrote that ``Goodwin will bring scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality to the Ninth Circuit.'' Reflecting on Liu's many years of work in serving the public interest, Campbell also said, ``I am not surprised that [Liu] has again been called to public service.''

Yes, he has been called and nominated, but he won't be able to continue his extraordinary work unless we get 51 votes here. I know there is some letter that is circulating that attacks Goodwin Liu again. I hope my colleagues will read not just what I am saying but what leading Republicans are saying about how talented Goodwin Liu is. Every single thing the man has done has turned to gold--every single thing he has done. He is best at everything he does. Why would we lose this opportunity for the American people to have him serve them in this important capacity? I ask that rhetorically. I cannot imagine why anybody would vote no.

Here is another one. Professor Liu has even drawn praise from Brian Jones, who served as General Counsel at the Department of Education after Liu's tenure there. This is what Brian Jones, the General Counsel at the Department of Education, said:

During [2001 abd 2002], and even after he became a law

professor in 2003, [Goodwin] volunteered his time and

expertise on several occasions to help me and my staff sort

through legal issues he worked on during the previous

administration. In those interactions, Goodwin's efforts were

models of bipartisan cooperation. He brought useful knowledge

and careful lawyerly perspectives that helped our

administration to achieve its goals.

But I am convinced, based on his record and my own

experiences with him, that he is

thoughtful, fair-minded and well qualified to be an appellate

judge.

I don't know why the Republicans filibustered this nomination. I don't know why they filibustered this. I don't understand it.

Let's look at some of the organizations that back Goodwin. Of course, those in the Asian American community are so proud, as they should be and as I am, because Goodwin is a Californian by choice.

In an op-ed published just today, former Secretary Norm Mineta, the first Asian Pacific American member of a President's Cabinet; that is, the Bush Cabinet, wrote that ``Professor Liu is an extremely well- qualified nominee who has the intellectual capacity, experience, temperament and integrity to be an excellent jurist.'' Mineta went on to warn that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications.''

Again, Norm Mineta--and anybody who knows Norm knows what a wonderful human being he is. George W. Bush chose Norm Mineta, who is a Democrat, to be the Secretary of Transportation. Norm Mineta says that because Professor Liu is so qualified and has so much intellectual capacity, such great experience, such great temperament, and so much integrity, he warns that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications.''

We also have a quote from the Committee of 100, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that addresses issues concerning Sino-U.S. relations affecting the Chinese American community. They wrote that ``[Liu's] ascension to the bench would signal that talented people of all backgrounds are integral to our justice system.''

What we do here matters. It matters whom we send to these important positions. We have someone here who will break down barriers, but, do you know what, that would not be enough. He has to be great, he has to be outstanding, and he is all those things. Yet we are very nervous about getting 51 votes. We are very nervous that politics is being played. We don't know what is going to happen at the end of the day. That is why I am taking this time, because I want my colleagues to know that if they cast an ``aye'' vote, it should bring a smile to their faces, and they should feel good in their hearts and their minds that they are doing the right thing.

Twenty-five prominent Asian-Pacific Americans who serve as general counsel to Fortune 1000 companies and other large companies wrote:

Professor Liu has earned praise from conservatives and

progressives alike for his sense of fairness, open-

mindedness, and integrity. His intellect and qualifications

are beyond dispute. Indeed, Professor Liu has been rated

unanimously ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar

Association.

They go on:

It is worth noting that Professor Liu, if confirmed, would

become the only Asian Pacific American active appellate court

judge in the Ninth Circuit, and only the second Asian Pacific

American active appellate court judge nationwide. Especially

given the large number of Asian Pacific Americans in

California, Hawaii, and other states, covered by the Ninth

Circuit--

And I said before I think it is 40 percent of Asian Americans who live in this particular area that the court covers--

the lack of an Asian Pacific American judge in this circuit

is striking. We feel that Professor Liu would serve our

country well and with distinction.

Professor Liu has drawn law enforcement support, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, as well as the National Asian Peace Officers Association, which noted that Professor Liu has ``earned the respect of [its] members and the large audience of the law enforcement community.''

David Lum, the president of National Asian Peace Officers Association, went on to compliment Liu as ``a person of integrity, dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and law and order.''

Liu has also received support from the business community, including from the prominent business executives with whom Liu served on the Stanford University board of trustees. In a letter of support, Liu's fellow trustees wrote the following:

Across a wide range of complex issues, Goodwin routinely

asks thoughtful and incisive questions. He is good at

thinking independently and zeroing in on important issues

that need attention. Even in a room full of highly

accomplished leaders, Goodwin is impressive. He is

insightful, constructive, and a good listener. Moreover, he

possesses a remarkably even temperament; his demeanor is

unfailingly respectful and open-minded, never dogmatic or

inflexible. Given these qualities, it was no surprise that he

was asked to chair the board's Special Committee on

Investment Responsibility after serving just one year of his

five-year term.

Again and again, there is a thread running through this man's life at 40. That is how old he is, 40--40 years old. Everything this man has done, this young man has been unbelievably--I want to say unimaginable at his age that he has done all he has done.

They continue:

In short, Goodwin's strengths are exactly what we expect in

a judge: objectivity, independence, collegiality--

This is what the Stanford trustees say--

respect for differing views, sound judgment. Goodwin

possesses these qualities on top of the brilliant legal

acumen that is well-established by his professional record

and the judgment of those most familiar with his scholarly

work.

It goes on and on.

The President of Stanford University, along with two presidents emeritus, wrote to endorse Liu's nomination. They said that Liu ``has epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

This eloquence that is coming out of people's mouths about Goodwin-- honestly, I have stood here many times, and I have spoken on behalf of many nominees. I honestly have not had a situation where the eloquence and passion of the supporters has come through as it has for this young man. He is a blessing, honestly. I feel at this moment we need to back him--all of us--and bring this country together around someone who epitomizes the American dream.

I want to speak about, as I wind down, newspapers across the country that weighed in to support Liu's nomination.

The Washington Post remarked that:

Mr. Liu has sterling credentials that earned him the

highest rating from the American Bar Association. And there

have been no allegations of impropriety to disqualify him

from serving. The brilliant professor [they call him], who

just turned 40 in October, testified that he would not allow

his academic musings to interfere with the duties of a lower-

court judge to follow precedent. He should be confirmed and

given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do that.

I was going to ask unanimous consent because I know Senator Tester has been waiting for 40 minutes--I ask the Senator, does he need about 5 or 7 minutes in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tester be able to speak for 7 minutes in morning business before we get to Senator Grassley; is that acceptable?

I am almost done.

I am closing in the next 2 minutes.

The Sacramento Bee noted that Liu would add luster to any court. The Los Angeles Times joined the New York Times in endorsing his confirmation.

We heard from Professor Liu when I opened, and I am going to close by saying this: When we ask people in this country to give back to this Nation and they step to the plate and they want to give their talent to this Nation and they are supremely qualified and they bring with them mainstream views, mainstream endorsements, bipartisan endorsements from the progressive community to Ken Starr, for goodness' sake, give this man an up-or-down vote and do not say that you believe that judges deserve an up-or-down

vote when you are in the majority and suddenly say they do not deserve it now.

I hope we will see the 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 votes for confirmation. I am privileged to have had this opportunity to share the story of Professor Goodwin Liu with my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the order?

Is there a specific time limit on each individual Senator?

I ask for such time as I may consume, probably less than 15 minutes.

I want to say that the Senator from Alaska does an excellent job of representing the oil companies. She puts forward the oil companies' arguments magnificently. She is very good at it. She was an economics major, and so was I. She said what she learned in her time, and let me tell you what I learned.

I learned that corporate welfare is wrong, that corporate welfare to companies that are on the Fortune 500 list is particularly wrong.

ExxonMobil, No. 2 on the Fortune 500--excuse me if I do not cry for Exxon. Forgive me if I shed no tears for Chevron--they are No. 3--and forgive me, ConocoPhillips. You are No. 4, but you are working on it. I tell you whom I shed tears for--my people at home who are having to pay ridiculous prices and who also have to face a Federal deficit and are looking to us for leadership here. And leadership requires us to say: How long do you have to give corporate welfare to oil companies that have been getting it for 100 years? Count them--100 years. And they are so huge. They are multinational. They are multibillion. I will get into what their people earn, what their CEOs earn in a minute.

So I learned that corporate welfare is bad. It distorts the market. And to compare the tax deductions Big Oil has with the home mortgage deduction gets right under my skin because the people who benefit from the home mortgage deduction are primarily the middle class of this country. So do not come here and compare home mortgage deductions with corporate welfare for the biggest companies in our country.

When are the defenders of Big Oil going to decide how much corporate welfare is enough? When are the defenders of Big Oil going to answer this question: How high does the deficit have to go before you are willing to step up to the plate and end corporate welfare for the biggest corporations that are cleaning our clocks all the way to the bank? I would hope the time is now.

I am going to try to lay out in a series of charts why I believe that. So let's go with the first one.

First of all, we see the first quarter profits: ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion; as a percentage increase from last year, 69 percent. I am supposed to cry for them. I don't think so. BP, with all of their troubles, corporate profit, $7.1 billion--this is just in the first quarter--up 17 percent; Shell, up 30 percent; ConocoPhillips, up 44 percent; and Chevron, up 74 percent. Yet Big Oil has the defenders on this floor saying: Wah wah. We cannot allow them to pay their fair share.

Well, I tell you, we have a deficit problem. If we cannot ask the wealthy few in this country to do their share, I do not know where we are headed.

Let's cry for Big Oil--or let's not. Mr. President, $14.5 million is the average compensation for the big five oil company CEOs. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter, it is 273 times the average salary of a teacher, it is 263 times the average salary of a police officer, and it is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. So we actually have people in this Senate coming here not only to defend these corporations but the CEOs who are crying to us that their companies cannot pay a few dollars more to help us solve our deficit problem.

Do you know what? We could lose this vote. They are filibustering it. We need 60. Let the American people see who is on their side.

Well, who is on the side of these corporations? The effective tax rate for Exxon is 18 percent on their $7.7 billion in income. A family of two teachers has an effective tax rate of 19 percent. Can you believe this? We have people coming to this floor crying for the oil companies when they pay an effective tax rate less than a family of two teachers. ExxonMobil, 18 percent on their billions; a family of a truckdriver and a dental hygienist, 19 percent. So the effective tax rate of these humongous, multibillion-dollar, multinational corporations is less than our middle-class families, and people are coming here to cry tears for these oil

companies, and the companies were whining in front of that committee. I mean, they may be very nice people, but they are out of touch. I agree with that. I think it was Senator Rockefeller who made that statement.

What we could do with the $21 billion over the next 10 years. We can continue these handouts, this corporate welfare to Big Oil, or we could fund the entire COPS Program for all of those 10 years and we could also provide afterschool care for 2 million kids. So I am asking people, would you rather have a cop on the beat at home and know our police are out there and they are protecting our families, would you rather make sure 2 million kids are kept off the street and have quality afterschool programs, or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations in the Fortune 500--three of the American companies are in the Fortune 500.

We could also provide 10 years of Federal Emergency Management Administration disaster relief. We are looking across this great Nation of ours, and we are seeing flooding, evacuations, sand-bagging--all of the problems--typhoons, hurricanes, and in California we know about earthquakes. FEMA is running out of money. Would you rather make sure they are ready for the next disaster or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations? You have to answer that question, America, because it does not look as though we are going to win this one.

These are issues you have to decide when you vote. That is the beauty of this country--people make a decision when they vote. If they agree with the Senator from Alaska that these five big oil companies still need corporate welfare, they know whom to vote for.

What could we do with $21 billion over the next 10 years? We could fund the Ryan White Program, which handles the AIDS epidemic at the level the President requested, and get rid of that dreadful disease.

You heard the sort of veiled threats from my colleague from Alaska, an oil State. I fully respect her; I just disagree with her entirely. But she has the absolute right to say what she said and believe what she said. I think it is parroting what the oil companies say. That is fine. That is her option. But the Joint Economic Committee said that repealing the oil subsidies would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the immediate future. So all of those threats that they are going to raise prices--I ask you rhetorically, Mr. President, for all of the years they have been getting all these subsidies, have they ever lowered their prices? No, they have not. The Congressional Research Service said that a small increase in taxes would be unlikely to reduce oil output and hence increase petroleum prices. So the experts are saying that nothing in this bill to make them pay their fair share is going to adversely impact gasoline prices.

The former CEO of Shell Oil said that with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary. He said that in February--their own people. Their own people. Yet, when they come to the committee, they are all whining about it.

Then you hear from those from the oil-producing States: Well, we do not have enough rigs in operation. This administration is not drilling.

Excuse me. There are such things called the facts. Let's look at them in this chart. We see more drilling than ever before. This administration is moving forward. The oil companies have over 50 million acres of leased land and offshore that they can drill on today, and all they want is more, more, more. They want to come to California, drill off our pristine coast, and threaten tens of thousands of jobs we have in our fishing industry, our tourism industry. They do not have to do that. They are sitting on these leases. They are drilling many more.

So let's just have the facts be part of the debate. That is what I am trying to do today with these charts, is to lay out the facts.

Now, how do we reduce gas prices? I had a press conference actually in an independent gas station last month. The independent gas station owner was wonderful. He said: I agree with you, Senator.

There I was, coming out with this plan. Here is how we can reduce gas prices:

End Big Oil subsidies and take that money--some of it--reduce the deficit, and take the rest and invest in alternatives so we have alternative clean fuels and batteries that can run our vehicles so we do not have to have these automobiles that are gas guzzlers.

Crack down on fraud and speculation. A lot of this increase is due to that.

Use it or lose it, say to the oil companies. You own all of these leases; drill on those leases.

Release oil from the SPR. We know the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has a tremendous amount of oil. This is the time to tap it. The last time we did it, prices went down 30 percent.

Invest in clean energy and efficiency.

Reduce exports. Can you believe that the producers right here in America are exporting their oil--some of their oil? Keep it home. We need it here.

So that is a plan we can take. But let me conclude my remarks this way. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we need to have some fairness in our lives. It is crucial.

All the talk about competition--we want competition. You do not have competition. When you are looking at these huge companies--and my colleague from Alaska talked about comparing them to these little bitty solar companies that are just getting started. When companies are just getting started with a new technology, that is one set of circumstances, but when you give these tax subsidies to Big Oil, you distort the price of the commodity. You distort the price of the commodity and you bring it down. Therefore, it is anticompetitive with other sources of energy.

This is the moment. We are looking to cut the deficit. We are looking for ways to bring billions of dollars home so that we can get out of the red. What could be more perfect than this opportunity in the name of fairness, in the name of competition, in the name of deficit reduction, frankly, in the name of the consumer? Let's have some fairness. Let's not come down to the floor and compare these corporate giveaways to the mortgage deduction our middle class so needs.

I thank you very much for this opportunity. I hope we will have the courage to vote to end this corporate welfare.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the time not used be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 20 minutes, followed immediately by Senator Isakson for such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to release the special counsel's report regarding the actions of former Senator John Ensign.

The committee also voted unanimously to refer several findings to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Election Commission because we had reason to believe that Senator Ensign violated laws within their jurisdiction. I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the Senators who participated in this investigation, many of whom are on the floor today: my vice chairman, the extraordinary leader, Senator Isakson--and I say leader, I mean a leader on the committee. I consider him to be a cochair with me. And Senator Roberts, who has been on this committee for a long time, who has a sense of history, and a sense of levity, and pragmatism. I appreciated his cooperation.

I want to note the participation of Sherrod Brown, who came on this committee and began this journey with us and his very important contribution; Senator Risch, who brought with him a very strong legal slant on everything we did and was very valuable. I want to thank him.

I want to say a special word of thanks to Senator Cardin who sat in on this case because Senator Pryor felt he had too close a relationship with Senator Ensign and had to recuse himself. Senator Cardin, we thank you so much for coming in and focusing on this case. I have to say, I am so grateful to how thoroughly and hard and collaboratively we all worked during this 22-month investigation. I say--and I mean--it was an honor to work with my colleagues.

The Ethics Committee is unique. Its staff is nonpartisan, and its actions are bipartisan. That is so important always, but particularly during these very polarized times, and also because this was such a long and difficult investigation for many reasons.

I want to be clear about why the committee is releasing its report to the public and why Senator Isakson and I are addressing the Senate today. If any of our colleagues wish to add to our comments, I hope they will do so. While Senator Ensign's resignation ended our investigation before the next phase, which was the adjudicatory phase or the trial phase, it did not end our profound responsibilities to the Senate, to our laws, to our rules, to our Constitution, and, of course, to the American people.

Article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States says that: ``each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.'' That is in the Constitution.

Senate rules give the Ethics Committee responsibility to investigate alleged violations of laws and rules and

``improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.'' That is a quote from our rules.

Finally, Ethics Committee rules make clear that whenever its members have ``reason to believe'' that a violation of law has occurred, we ``shall'' report it to the proper authorities.

Let me say that again. Ethics Committee rules make it clear that whenever the members of the committee have reason to believe that a violation of law has occurred, we shall report it to the proper authorities. So we have a solemn responsibility indeed. It is actually a mandate to refer possible criminal or civil violations to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Election Commission. That is what we have done today.

We also have another responsibility. That is to tell the American people when we believe laws and rules have been broken, and that standards of conduct have been breached. That is what we have done today.

Our special counsel, Carol Elder Bruce, has written a report that speaks in great detail about her findings, and that report has been released today. These findings are so disturbing that she believed that had Senator Ensign not resigned, and had we been able to proceed to that adjudicatory phase, the evidence of Senator Ensign's wrongdoing would have been substantial enough to warrant the consideration of expulsion, the harshest penalty available to the Ethics Committee and the Senate.

That is why when former Senator Ensign resigned, the vice chairman and I put out a statement, and we said that he had made ``the appropriate decision.''

I want to give you the findings of the special counsel.

One. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign conspired to violate Doug Hampton's postemployment contact ban.

Two. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign aided and abetted Mr. Hampton's violations of the postemployment contact ban.

Three. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign made false and misleading statements to the Federal Election Commission regarding the $96,000 payment made to the Hamptons.

Four. There is substantial credible evidence that the $96,000 payment to Mr. Hampton violated Federal campaign finance laws.

Five. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign violated a law and a Senate rule prohibiting unofficial office accounts.

Six. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign permitted spoliation of documents and engaged in potential obstruction of justice.

Seven. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign discriminated on the basis of gender.

Eight. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign engaged in improper conduct reflecting on the Senate, including violating his own office policies, written in a manual.

These eight serious findings in the special counsel's report are the culmination of an extensive 22-month investigation and the basis for the committee's unanimous decision to refer this matter to the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission.

As Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, I am proud to report to the Senate that our committee and its staff and special counsel have been fair and thorough. We deposed or interviewed 72 witnesses. We issued 32 subpoenas for documents. We reviewed more than one-half million documents, including a large number that were initially withheld from the committee. None of this would have been possible without the very hard work done by the staff of our committee, our personal offices--and I am so grateful to them--the special counsel who was extraordinary and to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude.

I particularly wish to thank the staff director and the chief counsel of the Ethics Committee, John Sassaman, and his team. They were focused and they searched for the truth, and we believe they found the truth.

Again, I also wish to personally thank our special counsel, Carol Elder Bruce, and her team.

Our Founders gave Congress the responsibility to ensure that its Members behave ethically. The Ethics Committee tries to do this by working to prevent violations of rules and laws when possible. We try to work with colleagues before they do something they shouldn't do. We try to train colleagues so they understand what we mean when we say don't bring any kind of shame upon the Senate. Then, if something bad happens, we give a fair hearing, we might sanction them, and we do when necessary. This isn't an easy task, but every member of the Ethics Committee is committed to fulfilling our critical responsibility in a thorough, fair, and bipartisan fashion.

When Senator Ensign resigned, he said: ``I have not violated any law, any rule, or standard of conduct.'' I wish to go on record as chairman of the Ethics Committee to say how strongly I disagree with that statement.

Let's be clear. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to the ethics complaint filed against him. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to a 22-month investigation by the Ethics Committee. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to the very serious findings and referrals in the report we are releasing to the public today.

The committee believes every Senator should read this report very carefully. Let me say that again. The committee believes every Senator should read this report very carefully because it is a cautionary tale. It shows that our actions--all of them--have consequences for ourselves, for our families, for our staffs, for Congress, and for our Nation. It shows we must ensure every action we take is within the law, the rules, and the appropriate standards of conduct. In my view, if I can say my own personal view, it shows something else; that is, when you are in a position of trust and power, don't abuse it. Don't misuse it because people can get hurt, very hurt.

We cannot violate the laws or rules we set for others, including our own staffs. We must always lead by example, not by words alone.

This Ensign case was a sad chapter for the Senate but a far sadder chapter for those whose lives were affected and destroyed by his actions. I wish to thank the Senate for placing its trust in the Ethics Committee.

I yield to the vice chairman of the committee, the one whom I consider my cochairman, Senator Isakson.

Mr. President, as we mark the end of National Nurses Week, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the nurses who serve on the front lines of our health care system. Nurses are heroes, not just to their patients, but to the families and loved ones who rely on their compassion and care.

While we celebrate nurses this week, we must also acknowledge that too many nurses are overworked because of staffing levels that are simply inadequate.

For decades nurses have been telling us that we need more of them to provide quality care to our loved ones, especially in hospitals. Study after study has been done, we know there is a nationwide nursing shortage.

By 2020, it is estimated that the demand for full time nurses will exceed supply by 1 million nurses.

That is why I am introducing the National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act, which will not only help address the nationwide shortage of skilled nurses, it will improve the quality of health care for all Americans.

The National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act champions nursing rights, nursing ratios, and nursing reform.

This bill protects the rights of nurses to speak out for their patients and to speak out for themselves, without the fear of discrimination or retaliation, because if there is a problem in a hospital nurses should be able to talk about it.

This bill sets minimum nurse to patient ratios, because if we expect nurses to give patients high quality care we need to give nurses the time to provide it. It lays out a transparent process for establishing staffing plans in hospitals and puts forward the tools for nurses to report inadequate staffing or care.

This bill reforms the role of hospitals not just in working with nurses to improve care, but also in training nurses. It creates mentorship and preceptorship programs to support nurses as they adapt to the hospital setting and grow in their profession.

Twelve years ago, nurses in California fought and won a major battle for their patients and for themselves, and the results were minimum nurse to patient ratios in California hospitals.

I am proud to join with nurses in their effort to improve care for their patients, and introduce Federal legislation that would extend these rights, ratios and reforms to nurses in hospitals across the country.

Reports on California ratios have only begun to show what so many of the nurses I meet already know, that setting a minimum standard for safe staffing can mean the difference between life and death of patients.

A 2002 study found that for every patient added to a nurse's workload there is a 7 percent increase in the chance of death following common surgeries.

In California, the hospitals that have seen the greatest effect in reduced mortality were the ones that started with the worst staffing ratios.

We also know that hospitals are losing good nurses because of these staffing shortages. A poll of nurses nationwide found that almost half of the nurses who plan to quit their job say that inadequate staffing is the reason they are leaving. The cost of replacing these valuable workers has been estimated at $25,000 to $60,000 per nurse. That is an added cost that we know our health care system cannot afford.

Too many nurses get burned out by being overloaded with too many patients. Too many nurses have given up on serving in hospitals because the hospitals have given up on providing a better environment for both nurses and patients.

Investing more in nursing staff will help hospitals avoid costly medical mistakes and provide better care for their patients and most importantly, will save lives.

I joined many of my colleagues in supporting provisions of health care reform that invested in our health care workforce. At 2.9 million strong, nurses are the largest health care workforce in our country, and this investment is long overdue.

I am pleased to share that this bill has the support of the California Nurses Association as well as AFSCME-United Nurses of America.

Nurses are not just the face of the movement to improve health care in our country, they are the face of health care in our country. This bill is for them and the patients they so faithfully serve.

Mr. President, as we mark the end of National Nurses Week, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the nurses who serve on the front lines of our health care system. Nurses are heroes, not just to their patients, but to the families and loved ones who rely on their compassion and care.

While we celebrate nurses this week, we must also acknowledge that too many nurses are overworked because of staffing levels that are simply inadequate.

For decades nurses have been telling us that we need more of them to provide quality care to our loved ones, especially in hospitals. Study after study has been done, we know there is a nationwide nursing shortage.

By 2020, it is estimated that the demand for full time nurses will exceed supply by 1 million nurses.

That is why I am introducing the National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act, which will not only help address the nationwide shortage of skilled nurses, it will improve the quality of health care for all Americans.

The National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act champions nursing rights, nursing ratios, and nursing reform.

This bill protects the rights of nurses to speak out for their patients and to speak out for themselves, without the fear of discrimination or retaliation, because if there is a problem in a hospital nurses should be able to talk about it.

This bill sets minimum nurse to patient ratios, because if we expect nurses to give patients high quality care we need to give nurses the time to provide it. It lays out a transparent process for establishing staffing plans in hospitals and puts forward the tools for nurses to report inadequate staffing or care.

This bill reforms the role of hospitals not just in working with nurses to improve care, but also in training nurses. It creates mentorship and preceptorship programs to support nurses as they adapt to the hospital setting and grow in their profession.

Twelve years ago, nurses in California fought and won a major battle for their patients and for themselves, and the results were minimum nurse to patient ratios in California hospitals.

I am proud to join with nurses in their effort to improve care for their patients, and introduce Federal legislation that would extend these rights, ratios and reforms to nurses in hospitals across the country.

Reports on California ratios have only begun to show what so many of the nurses I meet already know, that setting a minimum standard for safe staffing can mean the difference between life and death of patients.

A 2002 study found that for every patient added to a nurse's workload there is a 7 percent increase in the chance of death following common surgeries.

In California, the hospitals that have seen the greatest effect in reduced mortality were the ones that started with the worst staffing ratios.

We also know that hospitals are losing good nurses because of these staffing shortages. A poll of nurses nationwide found that almost half of the nurses who plan to quit their job say that inadequate staffing is the reason they are leaving. The cost of replacing these valuable workers has been estimated at $25,000 to $60,000 per nurse. That is an added cost that we know our health care system cannot afford.

Too many nurses get burned out by being overloaded with too many patients. Too many nurses have given up on serving in hospitals because the hospitals have given up on providing a better environment for both nurses and patients.

Investing more in nursing staff will help hospitals avoid costly medical mistakes and provide better care for their patients and most importantly, will save lives.

I joined many of my colleagues in supporting provisions of health care reform that invested in our health care workforce. At 2.9 million strong, nurses are the largest health care workforce in our country, and this investment is long overdue.

I am pleased to share that this bill has the support of the California Nurses Association as well as AFSCME-United Nurses of America.

Nurses are not just the face of the movement to improve health care in our country, they are the face of health care in our country. This bill is for them and the patients they so faithfully serve.

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

Mr. President, it is my honor to be here to support the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to the Northern District of California. I congratulate Judge Chen and I congratulate his family on this momentous day that is long overdue. I wish to thank Senator Feinstein for her hard work and her leadership in support of Judge Chen's nomination.

I think the way we do our judge recommendations in California is exemplary. What we do is, we each have a committee that advises us, and they come up with the names of a few people who they think are the top choices. Then, each of us makes that recommendation to the President. Judge Chen was her nominee.

Judge Chen has had a distinguished career. He enjoys broad support and respect in California's legal community. When I heard the remarks of my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, it broke my heart because it doesn't sound to me as though he knows Judge Chen. He seems to be criticizing someone else--someone who sets aside the law. That is not Judge Chen. Judge Chen will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench.

Since 2001, Judge Chen has served as a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California, where he has issued over 350 published legal opinions. Before coming to the bench, Judge Chen was a respected civil rights lawyer and part of the trial team that successfully overturned the wartime conviction of Fred Korematsu. He made history when he became the first Asian-American magistrate judge to serve in the Northern District. Today, Judge Chen takes another history-making step if he is confirmed--and I surely hope he will be--because when he is confirmed, he will be only the second Asian American in the 150-year history of the Northern District to be confirmed as a judge.

In our great Nation, we are a melting pot. I don't believe we can have the kind of justice our Founders envisioned unless we have juries of our peers and we have judges who also represent the broad quilt that is America. I think this is something to talk about, not to ignore.

While I am proud we are finally going to vote on the confirmation of Judge Chen, I have to again express frustration that it took so long to reach this point. Judge Chen was nominated over 21 months ago. I ask everyone to think about this--the family, everybody waiting for this moment, years and years on the bench with an outstanding record. I remember attending Judge Chen's confirmation hearing in September 2009. He was nominated for a judicial emergency seat, one that has been vacant since April 2008. That is a judicial emergency. We don't have enough judges. So one would think we would move quickly on this. Following his hearing, his nomination was held up by an unprecedented campaign of obstruction, unfortunately, by my friends in the Republican Party. They refused to allow an up-or-down vote, and they forced the White House to renominate Judge Chen, not once, not twice, not three times but four times--

four times. I tell my colleagues, I have read their objections, and they boil down to this: They object because once he worked as a staff attorney for the ACLU handling civil rights cases.

This is a man who received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. They gave him the ``well qualified'' rating. So I have to ask my colleagues why they would object to someone who did a good job defending the Constitution. By the way, I don't agree with the ACLU all the time, believe me. I am surprised at this objection. For example, the ACLU and the tea party in my State right now--in northern California--are working together to oppose free speech restrictions in front of the Redding Library. In fact, the ACLU and the tea party filed parallel lawsuits to strike down the restrictions.

So my friends on the other side who give the tea party a tremendous amount of support, I am a little surprised they would go after the ACLU, which is partnering with the tea party in defending the Constitution. It is hard for me to believe that because Ed Chen was once a staff attorney for the ACLU, he would come under this kind of fire.

They never objected to anything from his 9 years as a magistrate judge, not one complaint about any of the opinions he has written. Judge Chen's record as a fair and impartial judge since 2001 demonstrates clearly that he understands the difference between being an advocate and being a judge.

So I don't think we should say anyone who was ever the staff attorney for this organization or that organization is barred from getting promoted. That is a sad thing. I don't think people should be voted down or voted against because they stand for equal rights and civil rights. If anything, we ought to say: That is great, because we all want our civil rights protected. We all want our rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution protected.

Judge Roberts, the Chief Justice, has called on Senators to stop playing politics with judicial nominees. I have to say, to me, this sounds like politics. You don't like an organization, so then you say someone who has been a judge for 9 years--you have no complaints about him--go back 10 years and now say because you don't like that organization, they can't be promoted.

Chief Justice Roberts has warned that delays in filling vacancies has created acute difficulties in some judicial districts. That is a quote. Let me read it. The delays in filling vacancies ``has created acute difficulties in some judicial districts.'' Certainly, we know in this district we have been in an emergency situation.

It is time to get Judge Chen seated so he can continue serving the people of northern California as a district court judge. I commend Judge Chen for his strength and his perseverance over the past 21 months. This has not been an easy process. I commend his family for standing by him. I again commend Senator Feinstein for fighting for him, and I commend everybody here who was able to somehow hammer out an agreement to have an up-or-down vote on this very talented man.

I close with great hopes that we are going to get this nominee confirmed. In advance of that--and I hope I am right in doing this--I wish to congratulate Judge Chen and his family.

I urge my colleagues to cast their votes to confirm this highly qualified and respected nominee to the Northern District and make history in doing so and be proud in doing so and know that when we put qualified people on the court who bring a different background to the court, we are doing something very positive for America. That is what America is. I am a first-generation American on my mother's side, and I can tell my colleagues what I learned from her: that we should kiss the ground in this country. As I grew up, I realized that one of the great things about our country is we are such an experiment in democracy. People from every background, every religion, differences, but we believe in one thing; that is, protection of our rights and the belief in freedoms we get from this Nation and we vow to protect those freedoms. Part of protecting those freedoms is putting people on the bench who understand that. As Benjamin Franklin once said: You have a Republic if you can keep it. The way to keep it is not to bar people from getting these up-or-down votes. Put good people on this bench. You can vote no. You can vote yes. Yes, there are times when we say we want a supermajority, but for Ed Chen, I can tell my colleagues right now, this isn't one of those times. I look forward to his positive vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that is unused during the quorum calls be charged to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to two dedicated Navy officers who were tragically killed in a training accident in my home State of California.

LT Matthew Ira Lowe and LT Nathan Hollingsworth Williams died on April 6, 2011, after their F/A-18F Super Hornet crashed near the Lemoore Naval Air Station in central California. Lieutenants Lowe and Williams were assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-122, based at Lemoore Naval Air Station.

LT Matthew Ira Lowe of Plantation, FL, had a lifelong passion for flying. He received an engineering degree from the University of Central Florida in 2001. While in college, he also earned his pilot's license. He later joined the Navy and received his commission through Officer Candidate School in February 2003. Most recently, Lieutenant Lowe served as an instructor, and had been training to become a pilot for the elite Blue Angels exhibition team.

A decorated pilot who earned the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the National Defense Service Medal, Lieutenant Lowe will be remembered by those who served with him for his sense of humor and outgoing personality. Lieutenant Lowe is survived by his parents Ira and Pamela Lowe, and two elder siblings. He was 33 years old.

A native of Oswego, NY, LT Nathan Hollingsworth Williams attended the University of Rochester on a Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship. Upon graduating with honors in mathematics in 2004, he reported for duty at Naval Air Station Pensacola for flight training where he earned his naval flight officer wings. Lieutenant Williams was deployed to Afghanistan, where he served aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, providing air support for U.S. ground troops. After returning from Afghanistan, Lieutenant Williams was chosen as a flight instructor at Lemoore Naval Air Station.

For his service, Lieutenant Williams received a number of awards including two Presidential Air Medals, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Pistol Marksmanship Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. A dedicated Buffalo Bills fan, he will be remembered as a kind and caring person who was always willing to lend a hand to those in need. Lieutenant Williams is survived by his wife Meredith; his parents Alan and Gay Williams; and his brothers Jeffrey and Seth. He was 28 years old.

Nothing can fully account for the loss suffered by the families of Lieutenants Lowe and Williams, and all those who loved them. But I hope they can take comfort in the knowledge that they will be forever honored and remembered by a grateful Nation.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I pay tribute to Abraham ``Abe'' Breehey, and I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring his memory. Abe, who was a champion of the rights of America's working men and women, passed away suddenly last month from complications related to a brain tumor. He was just 34 years old.

Abe was a well-respected friend and colleague to many in the Senate. As director of Legislative Affairs and special assistant to the international president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, he tirelessly represented workers across the country. He also served as chairman of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department's Legislative Task Force.

Abe worked closely with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, in our efforts to promote clean energy jobs. He represented labor interests with passion and intellect and was a powerful advocate for the role of workers in moving the U.S. toward a clean energy future.

He was, in the words of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers President Newton B. Jones, the union's ``point man on Capitol Hill,'' who advanced many critical causes on behalf of working men and women ``with boundless enthusiasm and determination.''

Abe's work was not limited to the U.S. Congress. He also worked internationally on efforts to control global warming, representing the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Abe received his bachelor's degree from Sienna College in Loudonville, NY, and his master's degree in public policy from the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany. He was also a graduate of the Trade Union Program at Harvard Law School. Prior to joining the Boilermakers, he served as legislative assistant for Representative Doggett.

As anyone who worked with him can tell you, Abe was an extraordinary person. Always full of cheer, he possessed a gift for finding common ground on tough issues, and he was taken from this world far too early.

On Thursday, April 14, Abe passed away, leaving a loving wife, Sonya, and beloved daughter, Abigail. He is also survived by his parents Ray and Carol Breehey, sister Rachel Breehey Mollen, three nieces, and a nephew. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his loving family and many friends.

The U.S. Congress and workers across the country have lost a tireless advocate, trusted colleague and friend, and Abe will be greatly missed. Although his life was short, Abe unquestionably left his mark and he made a difference in the lives of working people everywhere. He will serve as an inspiration for all of us going forward, and we will build on his important work to honor his legacy. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the Senate in mourning the loss of Abe Breehey and paying tribute to the life of this vibrant and successful young man.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his eloquent statement he made about the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden and the impact and the need for us to come together as one Nation.

Mr. President, almost 10 years ago after the horrific attacks of 9/ 11, I voted to go after Osama bin Laden, as all of us did in the Senate at that time, to make sure justice would prevail. Now we know and the world knows that Osama bin Laden has paid the ultimate price for what he did.

His death does not lessen the tragic loss of all those killed by al- Qaida or

the pain of their loved ones, but it closes a chapter on his unspeakable acts, and there were more than one. They go back to October 2000. They go back to 1998 when their operatives attacked our people on the USS Cole and the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and there are other attacks that occurred as well.

What I want to do in a few minutes today is go back to some of the things I said on September 12, 2001, from a different seat, because I did not have much seniority. I was somewhere over on the front row. The reason I want to restate and read from the Record as to what I said on that day is because I think it is important for me, for myself, to get the type of closure I wanted to get when I cast that vote to go after Osama bin Laden, to go to war and get him. It reminds me of that thirst for justice we all had on that day and that we still have.

This is what I said on September 12, 2001:

Today I rise with pain in my heart and great emotion to

offer my prayers and my condolences for the people in this

country who have been directly hit by an act of war, people

in the State of my birth, New York, looking at that skyline,

the people who work at the Pentagon every day who have chosen

to work to protect our Nation, and the people of California,

my State, who were on those planes that were hijacked and, of

course, to every other individual who was directly affected

and to all of us who have been affected.

I went on to say this:

One of our colleagues said we remember where we were when

tragedy hit this country. I remember too many things--not as

many perhaps as Senators who are older, but I certainly

remember where I was when I saw John Kennedy go down and

Martin Luther King go down, the Challenger disaster, and

yesterday the image of those planes, commercial and American

planes, four of them going down, crashing into buildings,

being used as lethal weapons against our people--an image

that has shaken us but has not shaken our resolve.

I went on to say:

I am going to make a very strong statement. When we look

back into history and what happened in Bosnia, people

suffered genocide because of their nationality, and to the

Holocaust, people suffered annihilation because of their

nationality. People were killed yesterday because they were

Americans. People were killed not because they were bad

people--they were good people--they were killed because they

were Americans.

That is what I said on the day after 9/11/2001. Then I said:

It is time for us to say we will fight and stand up for

them and their memories. We will take a stand against

inhumanity that occurred on our own soil. We are resolved to

honor those who died. We are resolved to make our Nation as

safe as it can be from those acts. We are resolved to hold

those who planned these attacks and who harbor these people

absolutely 100 percent accountable. We will hold them

accountable.

That is what I said on September 12, 2001.

They must pay because this is the test of a civilized

nation. We lead the civilized nations of the world. We will

not back down.

I stand proudly with my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle and with our President. We will be resolved to do

everything--and do it well and do it right--to bring justice

in the world.

Later that day, to the press I said:

I've never been at ground zero in a war, but, after this,

war is not an overstatement. The people who perpetrated this

are the scum of the Earth, and their views, their philosophy,

their version of civilization, if you can call it that, will

not stand.

I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that in my heart, the flames of justice are burning bright today. I thank our President for his resolve, for ordering this attack--a successful attack--on bin Laden's compound. To the bravest of the brave, I understand they were Navy Seals who went in there, not thinking 1 second about their own lives. The fact that the President ordered this, that he kept it quiet while he had to be distracted from things that, let us say, he should not have been distracted with--but he did it. He kept his focus.

It is an important moment in our history. The message is going out to anyone who would hurt us: They will be held accountable. They can run, but they are never going to hide from us and from justice.

We know we cannot let down our guard. We know that. But we also know we are not going to cower in a corner because we are fearful that somebody may try to hurt us. We are prepared. We are going to do everything we can to be prepared. But this is quite a moment.

I will never forget seeing the Pentagon on fire, flames shooting out. I was in an office right near here and looked out the window. We were told to evacuate the Capitol. That is seared in my memory.

Anyone who cares about justice, anyone who cares about the truth, anybody who cares about fairness and responsibility has to say that yesterday was a day when justice was done.

I am going to close by reading the names of the Californians who lost their lives because I told their families I will honor each one in every way I can. I think that ending my statement by paying tribute to them is important: David Angell of Pasadena; Lynn Angell of Pasadena; Seima Aoyama of Los Angeles; Barbara Aresteguis of Los Angeles; Melissa Barnes of Redlands; Alan Beaven of Emeryville; Berry Berenson of Los Angeles; Carolyn Beug of Los Angeles; Yeneneh Betru of Burbank; Mark Bingham of San Francisco; Deora Bodley of Santa Clara; Touri Bolourchi of Beverly Hills; Daniel Brandhourst of Hollywood Hills; David Brandhourst of Hollywood Hills; Thomas Burnett of San Ramon; Suzanne Calley of San Martin; Jefferey Collman of Novato; Dorothy Dearaujo of Long Beach; Darlene Flagg of Corona; Dee Flagg of Corona; Wilson Flagg of Corona; Lisa Frost of Rancho Santa Margarita; Ronald Gamboa of Los Angeles; Andrew Garcia of Portola Valley; Edmund Glazer of Chatsworth; Lauren Grandcolas of San Rafael; Andrew Curry Green of Los Angeles; Richard Guadagno of Humboldt County; Stanley Hall of Rancho Palos Verdes; Gerald Hardacre of Carlsbad; John Hofer of Bellflower; Stephen Hyland of Claremont; Barbara Keating of Palm Springs; Chandler Keller of El Segundo; Jude Larson of Los Angeles; Natalie Larson of Los Angeles; Daniel John Lee of Van Nuys; Maclovio Lopez of Norwalk; Dora Menchaca of Santa Monica; Nicole Miller of San Jose; Laurie A. Neira of Los Angeles; Ruben Orneda of Los Angeles; Jerrold Paskins of Anaheim Hills; Thomas Pecorelli of Los Angeles; Robert Penniger of Poway; Mari- Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara; Alicia Titus of San Francisco; Otis Tolbert of Lemoore; Pendyala Vamsikrishna of Los Angeles; Timothy Ward of San Diego; and John Wenckus of Torrance.

I said then on September 12, in the name of these Californians and in the name of the other innocent victims, it is time for the terrorism to stop.

I yield the floor.

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

I yield back all remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.