Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, often I come to the Senate floor to talk about alternative energy. Most of the time it is about biofuels. Sometimes it is about wind, because I am the author of the wind energy tax credit. Sometimes it is to speak about it. Hardly ever do I come to the floor to talk about it in regard to the attempt to amend a certain bill on the floor. I come for that purpose now, and I come to express my strong opposition to amendment No. 220 filed at the desk by Senator Coburn.

I don't find any fault with the issue Senator Coburn raises, only when it is raised. I sense from some of his arguments and press releases that it is raised to bring up the issue of energy and what energy should be subsidized or not subsidized, or whether any energy ought to be subsidized, and also maybe to point out some things that are wrong with the Tax Code. I can't find any fault with any of those motives. I only find fault, let's say, in the sense that it is being brought up to show that there are some things wrong with the Tax Code and the Tax Code ought to be reformed.

Yes, if anybody said the Tax Code was a perfect piece of work, you might think: Well, you have been in Washington too long or you don't exercise good judgment or you are not in the real world. So I think it is perfectly legitimate to bring up issues about the Tax Code, but in the sense of reform of the Tax Code, not as an isolated amendment to some other bill, for the simple reason that if you do that, with the complexity of our Tax Code--reforming it in that way--every Senator attempting to do that would be growing a long gray beard for the years it would take to do it piecemeal. Hopefully, we can get it done sometime in the context of tax reform and tax simplification, or flat tax or fair tax, and also with the corporation tax.

As to the motive for bringing up subsidies for energy, it is a perfectly legitimate subject to bring up, but it ought to be brought up in the context of a national energy policy. I believe Senator Coburn is like me. He feels if you are going to have a growing economy, you have to have a growth in the use of energy, except for possible conservation. If you are going to do more for more people, you are going to have to have an increase in the use of energy. So it is in that vein that I state my opposition to the Coburn amendment.

Senator Coburn's amendment would raise the tax on domestic energy production by repealing an incentive for the use of homegrown renewable ethanol. I am astonished, given our current situation, that there are some who would prefer less domestic energy production. With conflicts in the Middle East and crude oil over $100 a barrel, we should be on the same side.

I have always considered myself on the same side as Senator Coburn on energy issues. We should all be on the side of more domestically produced energy, and that would be nuclear, it could be alternative energy, and it

would be drill here and drill now. The tremendous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil has never been more clear than when you have the conflicts and the revolutions going on in oil-producing regions of the world--now in the Middle East and northern Africa.

So we have this threat, and in light of that threat, we should have an energy policy that says ``all of the above.'' You don't pick and choose. I support drilling here and drilling now. I support renewable energy. I support conservation, both what might be mandated by public policy as well as personal conservation. I think people who know me know I have a reputation for conservation for several reasons--maybe energy conservation, but also it leaves more money in your pocket. I also support nuclear energy. So I believe it is very counterproductive for Senators from big oil country to single out energy that comes from American agriculture--renewable energy, homegrown energy, not imported. I didn't pick this fight. I support energy from all sources. I support traditional oil and gas, and more of it, from here. I held 21 meetings in 20 different counties Monday through Thursday during the last recess, and there wasn't a single person at one of them who didn't say: How come we aren't making more use of our own energy? They didn't say: We import $730 million a day of oil, but I told them, and it emphasized their point.

Why ship $730 million every day overseas to parts of the world where they use the money to train terrorists to kill us? And, of course, American taxpayers--American taxpayers--with tax incentives have been supporting oil and gas for over 100 years. So the attack on homegrown energy is remarkable, isn't it? We shouldn't be fighting each other over domestic energy sources. We should be fighting OPEC and foreign dictators and oil sheiks who hold our economy hostage. You see it right now, because of the anxiety about what is going on in Libya, and raising the price of gasoline 75 or 80 cents.

The author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean homegrown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. It is important to remember that the incentive exists to help producers of ethanol to compete with the oil industry or, as you so often hear in this town, we have to have a level playing field. Remember that the oil industry has been well supported by the Federal Treasury for more than a century. Oil was discovered in 1859. I don't know how many years later it was that there were tax incentives for the production of oil, but it has been a long time.

President Obama, in his budget request for 2012, has advocated repealing a dozen or so subsidies to big oil. He has argued that a century-old industry no longer needs tax breaks. With oil prices at $100 a barrel, and record profits being made, some could certainly question why this industry needs any taxpayer subsidy at all. President Obama's proposal would repeal $44 billion in oil and gas subsidies over a 10-year period of time.

I wish to remind my colleagues of a debate we had last summer on an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders. The amendment he offered would have, among other things, repealed about $35 billion of tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Opponents of the Sanders amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on foreign oil. Well, we don't want to do that, do we? Opponents also argued it would cost U.S. jobs. We also argued it would increase prices at the pump for consumers--something you don't want to do when you are in a recession. I tend to agree with these arguments in regard to the help that the Federal Treasury gives to oil companies. All of my Republican colleagues, and more than one-third of the Democrats, did as well. But a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase as well that will surely be passed on to the American consumer--no different for ethanol in your gas tank than gasoline in your gas tank. If you take subsidies off of oil, it raises the price of gasoline. If you take the incentives off of ethanol, it raises the price of ethanol.

I know that removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing incentives for ethanol. We will get less domestically produced ethanol, it will cost U.S. jobs, it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil, and it will increase the price at the pump for the American consumer. We are already dependent upon foreign sources for more than 60 percent of our oil needs. Why do my colleagues at this time want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce it right here at home--clean burning, environmentally good?

I wish to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing oil and gas subsidies but who support repealing incentives for renewable fuels why they have this inconsistency? Where are the amendments from fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks to repeal the oil and gas subsidies? The fact is it is intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but that it is irresponsible to do the very same thing on oil and gas production. If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas so important in accomplishing that goal?

It is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature and, thus, no longer needs the support of the taxpayers, while the century-old oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayer support. Regardless, I don't believe we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly during a weak economy.

The Senator from Oklahoma insists that because renewable fuel is required to be used, then somehow it doesn't need an incentive. But with oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. There isn't a mandate to use oil, but it has a 100-year monopoly on our transportation infrastructure, so essentially it is a mandate.

When there is little competition to oil, and it is enormously profitable--and we will see those reports next week--wouldn't the sponsor argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support, if we wanted to be consistent? Oil essentially does have a mandate, as I just said. The economics of oil production are clearly in favor of the producer, not the consumer. Why do they need taxpayer support?

It is also important to understand the hidden cost of our dependence upon foreign oil. We had a peer-reviewed paper published in 2010 concluding that--and let me say parenthetically, before I quote, the leeway is somewhere between $27 billion and $130 billion:

$27 to $138 billion is spent annually by the U.S. military

for protection of Middle Eastern maritime oil transit routes

and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion a

year.

This is $84 billion in American Treasury spent on the defense of shipping lanes to quench our thirst for foreign oil. It is not reflected in the price at the pump. It is a hidden cost and the hidden cost is paid by the very same people who support the military, our Navy, the American taxpayers.

Milton Copulos, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, testified before Congress in 2006 on this very issue. He testified that the hidden cost of imported oil is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline from the Persian Gulf. There is no hidden U.S. military cost attributed to homegrown ethanol.

Do you understand that? You don't have to have the Navy of the United States keeping shipping lanes open for the ethanol that you burn in your car. No subsidy of $8.35 a gallon for ethanol such as there is for oil, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Let's have a debate on ethanol, but let's debate it in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate should include the subsidies for all energy production. We do not pick out one versus others. What is unique about the subsidy for ethanol? We also have subsidies for grain and for biodiesel. When is that going to come up? We had a subsidy for wind energy--I know it because I got that legislated 18 years ago--and a subsidy for solar, subsidy for biomass, subsidy for geothermal, subsidy for nuclear energy. Why just ethanol at this point?

But I said at the beginning, talking about energy subsidies--oil, alternative

energy, nuclear energy, conservation--is legitimate. But don't pick one out. What are we going to do about all the rest of them? Are we going to take a subsidy a day? Take wind tomorrow? Take solar the next day? There is a context in which to do this. We all say we need a national energy policy. These subsidies have to be discussed in the context of a national energy policy. Nearly every type of energy gets some market- distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. We can say that is not right. But do we want alternative energy or don't we want alternative energy? Do we want renewable energy or don't we want renewable energy? Do you think we would have an ethanol industry today if there had not been a tax incentive a long time ago? No.

What about all the people who say we should not be using corn or grain, a food product, for fuel, we ought to be eating it? They say we ought to use corn stover, wood chips, switchgrass, other things that have cellulose in them and get our ethanol from that. I agree 100 percent. But how in the heck do we think we would ever get to producing ethanol out of corn stover and wood chips and switchgrass, et cetera, if we had not had 30 years of engineering to make ethanol out of grain--which we did not do very efficiently 30 years ago but now we do much more efficiently today. We have to have the first generation for the second generation.

I say an honest energy policy and debate should include ethanol. It should include subsidies for oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass. How do you think we would ever get hydropower in the West if the taxpayers had not paid for the Hoover Dam? It is hypocritical to put our economic and national security at risk by targeting ethanol while disregarding the subsidies for all other energy sources.

Do you know the debate about alternative energy is a debate about our national security because, for this country, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is our national defense and just think how weak our national defense is when we have to depend upon oil coming from the volatile Middle East, where there is revolution going on right now. Wouldn't it be better for it to be domestic crude? Why do you suppose the Defense Department, and even our whole aviation industry right now, is putting some money into research to develop alternative energies, including the stuff we call renewable and even things we do not know much about yet? Ethanol from algae is an example. Because our military leaders know we should not be dependent on it.

Just think of the retired generals and admirals out here speaking everyday of why we need alternative energy and speaking very highly of ethanol. I say it is hypocritical because it has something to do with our national security and we do take an oath to uphold that Constitution and the national security is our No. 1 responsibility. We know State governments and local governments cannot protect us from foreign intervention, people who want to kill us. Only the Federal Government is qualified and has the power to do it, the constitutional power--but also to bring the resources together to get the job done.

Repealing the ethanol tax incentive will raise taxes on producers, blenders, and ultimately consumers of renewable fuel. This amendment is a gas tax increase of over 5 cents a gallon at the pump. I don't see the logic of arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many Americans unemployed and underemployed, struggling just to barely make it from day to day. I know we all agree we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during this time of economic recession and, more important, that recession is going to stay as long as there is some economic uncertainty. Debates such as this--should we be importing more oil--lend themselves to that uncertainty. Unfortunately, those Members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge of not having tax hikes because a lapse in the credit will raise taxes, will cost over 100,000 U.S. jobs at a time of near 9 percent unemployment and increase our dependence upon foreign oil.

There is a taxpayer watchdog group called Americans for Tax Reform. They consider repeal of this incentive to be a great big tax increase. Americans for Tax Reform states: ``Repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase.''

I agree. Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people. Now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol-related jobs. Ethanol currently accounts for 10 percent of our transportation fuel. A study concluded that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the Federal Treasury in 2009, $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive. Today, the industry supports 400,000 jobs. That is why I support a homegrown renewable fuels industry.

I conclude by asking my colleagues: If we allowed the tax incentives to lapse, from where would we import an additional 10 percent of our oil? Because there is a policy in this Congress, don't drill in the United States, import it. The President was in Brazil, last week I believe it was, saying: President of Brazil, you ought to drill off the shore of Brazil because we want to import oil from you. At the very same time we are slow at issuing permits so we can drill our own oil off our own shores, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.

Where are we going to go? Are we going to go to the Middle Eastern oil sheiks? Send even more billions of dollars over there to give them money to train terrorists to kill us or do we want to get it from Hugo Chavez, who every day is saying something about how he hates America? He is taking the side of Qadhafi right this very day, against the revolutionaries of that country, the very people we are trying to help bring a better life to and stop genocide. I don't think we want to go to the Middle East for 10 percent more of our energy in our cars or to Hugo Chavez. I prefer, instead, that we support our renewable fuel producers based right here at home, rather than send our workers a pink slip. I would prefer to decrease our dependence on Hugo Chavez, not increase that dependence on him, and I certainly do not support raising the tax on gasoline during this weak economy.

Let me say something I said at the beginning and then I am going to yield the floor; that is, there is a context to talk about this. There is nothing illegitimate about anybody bringing up any tax incentive anytime they want to or any law that is on the books because they ought to be reviewed from time to time. But when it comes to energy policy at a time of $4 gas, at a time of anxiety about what is going on in Libya, at a time when we all know that people in this country want a national energy policy, it ought to be talked about in the context of energy legislation. We should talk about subsidy as a generic subject, not just picking out ethanol or any other one, just like some people here would like to pick out the subsidy for oil and end it--such as the President has suggested in his budget. We want to do it in the context of a national energy policy and a subsidy that is a subsidy to oil, to all renewable energies--and there are a dozen of them, I bet--to conservation, and to nuclear energy.

Let's emphasize nuclear energy. When we are talking about a subsidy, do we think we would have a single nuclear plant in the United States if 60 years ago the Federal Government, this Congress, hadn't passed the Price-Anderson Act to set up Federal support for it, indirect or direct, whatever it was. It took that to get it going. We had to reinstitute that in 2005 or we still wouldn't be considering any nuclear plants.

We do it in the context of a national energy policy. We do it in the context of subsidies on all sorts of energy, not just one of them. If we are doing it for tax reform purposes, then it has to be done in the context of overall tax reform because, as I said, we start on this little tax incentive today and that little tax incentive tomorrow and that little tax incentive the next day and we will be here until as long as Methuselah lived, in order to get it all done.

I hope there will be some consideration of this in a generic way, not in the specific way of this amendment. That is why I do not support the amendment at this time, but I want people to know I do not abhor the idea of talking about the ethanol tax credit or any other tax credit, except I want to talk about energy tax credits all together.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on another of President Obama's judicial nominees. Tonight's vote to confirm Ms. Mae D'Agostino will be the 14th judicial nominee confirmed this Congress. It is the 10th judicial emergency filled this year.

Even though I gave an update to my colleagues just 11 days ago, when we had our last judicial nomination vote, I will give a short report on the status of judicial nominations. To date, we have taken positive action on 33 of the 60 judicial nominees submitted this Congress, or 55 percent. We continue to have nominations hearings every 2 weeks, and have favorably reported nominees out of committee at every weekly markup session.

Furthermore, nominees in committee continue to be processed much faster than those nominated by President Bush. On average, President Obama's district court nominees have only had to wait 66 days from nomination to their hearing. For President Bush's nominees, the wait time was nearly double, at 120 days. President Bush's circuit court nominees waited, on average, 247 days for a hearing. President Obama's nominees are receiving their hearing, on average, within 72 days.

Even with our rapid pace, the Federal courts still hold a vacancy rate of almost 11 percent. Yet 54 percent of the vacancies do not have nominees. While we are processing consensus nominees in a fair and thorough manner, we cannot lower the vacancy rate if no nominee exists.

The seat to which Ms. D'Agostino has been nominated, vacant since March of 2006, is categorized as a judicial emergency. This vacancy should never have been deemed an emergency. President Bush nominated not one, but two nominees to this vacancy during the 109th and 110th Congresses. First, Mary Donohue, who had served as New York State's Lieutenant Governor, was nominated in June 2006, 3 months after the vacancy occurred. Ms. Donohue's nomination languished in committee without a hearing or a committee vote for 435 days. Her nomination was withdrawn in September 2007. President Bush then nominated Thomas Marcelle to the seat. He waited 155 days in the Judiciary Committee and never received a hearing. The nomination was returned at the end of the 110th Congress. In sum, the seat had a nominee for 590 days, with no action. This is justice delayed. I would note that both candidates had a rating from the ABA of ``Well Qualified.''

It took President Obama over 20 months to finally nominate an individual to this vacancy. While I am disappointed this seat has been needlessly vacant for so long, I am pleased to support the nominee before us today.

Mae Avila D'Agostino received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Siena College and her J.D. in 1980 from Syracuse University College of Law. Ms. D'Agostino began her legal career in 1981 as an associate attorney at Maynard, O'Connor & Smith. In 1985, she was made a partner. In 1997, Ms. D'Agostino left Maynard, O'Connor & Smith to start her own firm D'Agostino, Krackeler, Maguire & Cardona, P.C., where she currently practices. Throughout her career, Ms. D'Agostino has primarily practiced in the area of defense litigation with a concentration on medical malpractice.

In addition to her legal practice, Ms. D'Agostino has also taught legal courses at the Junior College of Albany and Albany Law School. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Ms. D'Agostino a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating. Her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote just 25 days ago.

I congratulate the nominee and wish her well in her public service as a U.S. district judge.

Madam President; toady we vote on our 13th judicial nominee in just 29 legislative days. In this session of the Senate, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than in the same time period for any of the previous four Presidents.

I like to keep my colleagues up-to-date with our cooperation and progress on judicial nominees. We continue to process nominees at a fast pace in committee. We held our fourth nominations hearing yesterday and have heard from 17 judicial nominees this year. The Judiciary Committee met this morning and reported an additional district court nominee. We have now reported 23 nominees, nearly 40 percent of the 58 judicial nominations made by President Obama this year. The committee has taken some step forward on 55 percent of the judicial nominees. We have delivered on our promise to move consensus nominees.

Even with our fast pace, the current vacancy rate remains high. But with 94 vacancies in the Federal courts, the President has only put forward 44 nominees for those vacancies. That is 50 vacancies without a nominee. For seats designated judicial emergencies, 57 percent of those vacancies have no nominee.

As I have said in the past, the burden is on the President to nominate consensus individuals for current vacancies. Yet, for the second time, President Obama has sent up a nomination to a seat which is not vacant. I think we can all agree the Senate's time and resources are valuable. My priority continues to be carefully reviewing nominations for vacancies which require our immediate attention.

Today we vote on Amy Berman Jackson, nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia. Ms. Jackson is not the first nominee to be considered for this vacancy. Michael O'Neill, who served as chief counsel and staff director to then-Chairman Specter, was nominated by President Bush to fill this seat in June of 2008. He waited for more than 18 months for a hearing and a vote--neither of which he received. His nomination was returned to the President in January 2009. I am disappointed the Senate did not give Mr. O'Neill the courtesy Ms. Jackson is receiving today.

Ms. Jackson received her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School, cum laude. Upon graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Harrison L. Winter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Ms. Jackson served as an assistant U.S. attorney before moving into private practice. She has focused on white-collar crime, plaintiffs' work involving multidistrict litigation and civil matters. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated her as ``well qualified.''

I congratulate the nominee and wish her well in her public service as a U.S. district judge.

Mr. President, all too often we learn of new and emerging drug threats to our communities that often have a huge negative impact on our youth. When these drug threats emerge it is crucial that we unite to halt the spread of the problem before it consumes families and communities.

Today we are confronted with new and very dangerous substances packaged as innocent products. Specifically, more and more kids are able to go online or to the nearest novelty store at the local shopping mall and purchase incense laced with compounds that seriously alter the mind. These products are commonly referred to as ``K2''or ``Spice'' among other names. Although these products contain a label that states that the product is not for human consumption, kids and drug users are smoking these products in order to obtain a ``legal high.''

It is believed that these products emerged on the scene beginning about 4 or 5 years ago and their use spread quickly throughout Europe. According to a study conducted by the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, most of the chemical compounds found in ``K2'' are not reported on the label. This study concluded that the compounds are not listed because there is a deliberate marketing strategy to represent this product as a natural substance.

However, these products are anything but natural. Most of the chemical compounds the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified within K2 products were invented by Dr. John W. Huffman of Clemson University in the 1990's for research purposes. These compounds were never intended to be used for any other purpose than research. Dr. Huffman developed these compounds to further understand endocannabinoid receptors in the body. They were only tested on mice and never tested on humans. No long term effects of their use are currently known.

As more and more people are experimenting with K2 it is becoming completely evident that their use is anything but safe. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports significant increases in the amount of calls concerning these products. There were only 13 calls related to K2 use reported for 2009, but there were over 1,000 calls concerning K2 use in 2010. Common effects reported by emergency room doctors include: increased agitation, elevated heart rate and blood pressure, hallucinations, and seizures. Effects from the highs from these synthetic drugs are reported to last as few as several hours and as long as one week. Dr. Huffman stated that since so little research has been conducted on these compounds that using any one of them would be like, ``playing Russian roulette.''

In fact, Dr. Anthony Scalzo, a professor of emergency medicine at St. Louis University, reports that the compounds are significantly more potent than the active ingredients of marijuana. Dr. Scalzo states that what is troubling is the fact that the amount of compounds varies from product to product so no one can be sure exactly the amount of the drug they are putting in their body. Dr. Scalzo states that this can lead to significant problems such as altering of mind, addiction, injury, and even death.

According to various news articles across the nation, K2 can cause serious erratic and criminal behavior. In Mooresville, Indiana police arrested a group of teens after they were connected to a string of burglaries while high on K2. Another case in Honolulu, Hawaii shows police arrested a 23-year-old man after he tried to throw his girlfriend off an 11th floor balcony after smoking K2. A 14-year-old boy in Missouri nearly threw himself out of a 5th story window after smoking K2. Once the teen got over his high he denied having any suicidal intentions. Doctors believe he was hallucinating at the time of this incident.

K2 use is also causing serious health problems and increased visits to the

emergency room. A Louisiana teen said he became very ill after trying K2. The teen said he experienced numbness starting at his feet and traveling to his head. He was nauseous, light-headed and was having hallucinations. This teen stated that K2 is being passed around at school and that many people were trying it without fear, assuming it was safe because it was legal. A 21-year-old man, from Greenfield, Indiana repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck while hallucinating on

Mr. President, all too often we learn of new and emerging drug threats to our communities that often have a huge negative impact on our youth. When these drug threats emerge it is crucial that we unite to halt the spread of the problem before it consumes families and communities.

Today we are confronted with new and very dangerous substances packaged as innocent products. Specifically, more and more kids are able to go online or to the nearest novelty store at the local shopping mall and purchase incense laced with compounds that seriously alter the mind. These products are commonly referred to as ``K2''or ``Spice'' among other names. Although these products contain a label that states that the product is not for human consumption, kids and drug users are smoking these products in order to obtain a ``legal high.''

It is believed that these products emerged on the scene beginning about 4 or 5 years ago and their use spread quickly throughout Europe. According to a study conducted by the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, most of the chemical compounds found in ``K2'' are not reported on the label. This study concluded that the compounds are not listed because there is a deliberate marketing strategy to represent this product as a natural substance.

However, these products are anything but natural. Most of the chemical compounds the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified within K2 products were invented by Dr. John W. Huffman of Clemson University in the 1990's for research purposes. These compounds were never intended to be used for any other purpose than research. Dr. Huffman developed these compounds to further understand endocannabinoid receptors in the body. They were only tested on mice and never tested on humans. No long term effects of their use are currently known.

As more and more people are experimenting with K2 it is becoming completely evident that their use is anything but safe. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports significant increases in the amount of calls concerning these products. There were only 13 calls related to K2 use reported for 2009, but there were over 1,000 calls concerning K2 use in 2010. Common effects reported by emergency room doctors include: increased agitation, elevated heart rate and blood pressure, hallucinations, and seizures. Effects from the highs from these synthetic drugs are reported to last as few as several hours and as long as one week. Dr. Huffman stated that since so little research has been conducted on these compounds that using any one of them would be like, ``playing Russian roulette.''

In fact, Dr. Anthony Scalzo, a professor of emergency medicine at St. Louis University, reports that the compounds are significantly more potent than the active ingredients of marijuana. Dr. Scalzo states that what is troubling is the fact that the amount of compounds varies from product to product so no one can be sure exactly the amount of the drug they are putting in their body. Dr. Scalzo states that this can lead to significant problems such as altering of mind, addiction, injury, and even death.

According to various news articles across the nation, K2 can cause serious erratic and criminal behavior. In Mooresville, Indiana police arrested a group of teens after they were connected to a string of burglaries while high on K2. Another case in Honolulu, Hawaii shows police arrested a 23-year-old man after he tried to throw his girlfriend off an 11th floor balcony after smoking K2. A 14-year-old boy in Missouri nearly threw himself out of a 5th story window after smoking K2. Once the teen got over his high he denied having any suicidal intentions. Doctors believe he was hallucinating at the time of this incident.

K2 use is also causing serious health problems and increased visits to the

emergency room. A Louisiana teen said he became very ill after trying K2. The teen said he experienced numbness starting at his feet and traveling to his head. He was nauseous, light-headed and was having hallucinations. This teen stated that K2 is being passed around at school and that many people were trying it without fear, assuming it was safe because it was legal. A 21-year-old man, from Greenfield, Indiana repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck while hallucinating on

Mr. President, I believe there is a pending amendment, which hopefully we will vote on, called the McConnell amendment. It basically takes away from the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency gets this power from a Supreme Court decision that said they had the authority to do so. That decision was about 2 or 3 years ago. It came about 16 or 17 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act was passed. Those of us who were around here and debated and worked on the Clean Air Act of 1990 don't remember any discussion about EPA under that legislation having the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but obviously the Supreme Court read the law differently than we intended.

The Environmental Protection Agency was told it could regulate greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency did not have to do that, but I suppose they are like regulators, generally. Some ask: Why do cows moo? Why do pigs squeal? And why do regulators regulate? Because regulators know how to regulate, and that is all they know how to do. So they are going to issue a regulation if they think they have the authority.

The situation is this: If we don't take away the authority--and in a sense overturn the Supreme Court case--EPA is going to put us in a position of being economically uncompetitive with the rest of the world, particularly in manufacturing.

When you increase the cost of energy by anywhere from $1,800, under one

study, to $3,000, under another study, per household, you are very dramatically increasing the cost of manufacturing. If we are worried about too many manufacturing jobs going overseas--and we if would let the EPA follow through with what they want to do, increasing the cost of energy--we will lose all our manufacturing overseas.

I have not checked the record, but my guess is a lot of my colleagues who are fighting the McConnell amendment and think it is not the right thing to do are the very same people who are very chagrined because jobs are going overseas and are blaming American industry.

Well, if we are going to pass a law that increases the cost of energy in this country, we are not going to have a level playing field with our competitors overseas. That is why I have always said, if we want to regulate CO2, we need to do it by international agreement. Because if China is not on the same level playing field as we are, then we are going to lose our manufacturing to China and other countries.

It happens that China puts more CO2 in the air than we do. Take China and Brazil and India and Indonesia, and they put a lot more CO2 into the air than the United States does. Yet somehow EPA is of the view that the United States acting alone can solve the global warming problem? Well, even the EPA Director has testified before committees of Congress that if the rest of the world does not do it, we are not going to make a dent in CO2 just by the United States doing it.

But the argument goes that the United States ought to show political leadership in this global economy we have, and if the United States would do something about CO2, the rest of the world would follow along. But China has already said they are not going to follow along. Even Japan, which signed on to the Kyoto treaty, said they would not be involved in extending the Kyoto treaty beyond 2012.

If the United States did it by itself, under the guise of being a world leader and setting an example, and the rest of the world did not do it, Uncle Sam would soon become ``Uncle Sucker,'' and we would find our manufacturing fleeing the United States to places where they do not have regulation on CO2, where energy expenses are not as high, and we would lose the jobs accordingly. In a sense, then, those people who have complained for decades about American manufacturing moving overseas would destine the United States to lose more of it.

I do not understand how people who are concerned about losing jobs overseas could be fighting the McConnell amendment. Because if we want to preserve jobs in America, our industry has to be competitive with the rest of the world. So I hope the McConnell amendment will be adopted, and I hope there will be some consistency in the reasoning of people who are concerned about the movement of jobs overseas, that it is intellectually dishonest to support EPA adopting regulations that are going to make America uncompetitive.

There is nothing wrong with seeking a solution to the CO2 problem. There is nothing wrong with working on the issue of global warming. But it ought to be a level playing field for American industry so we can be competitive with the rest of the world and not lose our industry, not lose our manufacturing overseas, and not lose the jobs that are connected with it.

But it often is the case that when either the courts or the Congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch agencies, it seems like we give them an inch and they take a mile.

There are plenty of other examples as well--and I will go into some of them in just a moment--of EPA having some authority and moving very dramatically beyond what Congress intended in a way that does not meet the commonsense test.

The work of EPA on CO2 is a perfect example of this kind of overreach. First of all, they did not have to do it just because the Supreme Court said they could do it. But like regulators, they want to regulate, and they are moving ahead.

I suppose they are moving ahead also because, in 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill regulating CO2--a bill that would have made the United States very uncompetitive, as I have stated the EPA will--but the Senate declined to take it up. I think this administration is intent upon getting the job done, and so they go to EPA to issue a rule because Congress will not pass the legislation it wants.

It is so typical of so many things this administration is doing; that because Congress will not pass a law they want, they see what they can do by regulation. So they are setting out to accomplish a lot of change in public policy that Congress declines to endorse, but they are going to act anyway. If they claim the authority to do it, they will probably get away with it and avoid the will of the people, the will of the people expressed through the Congress of the United States. So if Congress decides to not do something, can the administration ignore the will of the people? Yes, they can, if they want to, but they should not, in my judgment.

It brings me to not only the McConnell amendment but a lot of other things we should be doing around here to prevent this outrageous overreach by not only the Environmental Protection Agency but by a lot of other agencies as well.

Because when the EPA and other agencies promulgate rules that go beyond the intent of Congress--and never could have passed Congress--it undermines our system of checks and balances. The American people can hold their member of Congress accountable for passing laws they do not like. However, when unelected bureaucrats implement policies with the force of law that they would not have been able to get through the Congress--and that is without direct accountability when a regulator acts instead of Congress acting--something is very wrong, and it is against the will of the people.

I think it is time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. We try to do this from time to time in a process called the Congressional Review Act. I recall last June the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, proposed doing that on these very rules affecting CO2. We did not get a majority vote, so it did not happen. Maybe in the new Congress such an attempt would get a majority vote.

We cannot apply that Congressional Review Act again to those same rules, so that brings about the McConnell amendment I am speaking about--to take away the authority of EPA to do it. But perhaps we can use the congressional Review Act on a lot of other issues yet that regulators are regulating maybe against the will of the people, and I hope we will.

But there is one measure Senator Paul has suggested and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 231.

He uses the acronym REINS, but it is called the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Basically, what it does--and I applaud Senator Paul for his amendment, and I will surely vote for it--and that is, when we delegate authority to agencies in the executive branch of government to write regulations, and if those regulations are considered ``major rules,'' then they would have to be submitted to the Congress for our approval before they can go into effect and then would also have to be signed by the President before they would go into effect.

It seems to me that is a natural extension of Congress's authority under the Constitution to legislate and to be the only branch of government that can legislate. It seems to me to be a very adequate check on out-of-control bureaucracy, that they can only do those things Congress intended they do in the legislation they pass.

I would extend my remarks on something a little bit unrelated to the McConnell amendment but still to the overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency; this is, in regard to some of their regulations on agriculture. When it comes to their regulation of agriculture, instead of EPA standing for Environmental Protection Agency, I think it stands for ``End Production Agriculture.'' That is not their intent. But in this city of Washington--and I describe it sometimes as an island surrounded by reality--it is evidence of not enough common sense being put into the thought process of issuing regulations. I could give several examples, but I may just give a few.

Before I give those examples, I wish to compliment EPA on one thing.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will keep the Federal Government accountable.

Whistleblowers are the key to unlocking the secrets of wrongdoing because they have access to information about how the frauds were perpetrated and can help lead authorities in the right direction to uncover the frauds. However, for their brave efforts, they are often the victims of retaliation and are removed from their jobs by supervisors who don't want the wrongdoing uncovered. I have often said whistleblowers are as welcome as skunks at a Sunday picnic, despite the fact that all they do is bring forward the truth. This is wrong and that is why I have supported strong whistleblower protection laws during my time in Congress.

The landmark whistleblower law, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, WPA, provided rights and remedies to Executive Branch whistleblowers that are the victims of retaliation. I proudly cosponsored the WPA, but like many laws that are 20 years old, it needs to be updated. So, I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Akaka in the previous Congress to do just that. We are currently working to introduce similar legislation in this Congress. Despite this effort, there is still a critical gap in whistleblower protections for government employees, namely the lack of whistleblower protections for employees of the Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal Government. I am here today to start that discussion and introduce legislation that will provide the same whistleblower protection rights currently extended to Executive Branch employees to the Legislative Branch.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCaskill in introducing the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011. This important legislation simply adds whistleblower protections to the Legislative Branch by incorporating the WPA into the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a law I authored to bring Congress in line with many labor laws and workplace protections. I have long believed Congress should practice what it preaches, and this legislation will do just that.

A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as the elections this past November, is accountability and responsibility in Washington. In most instances, the only reason we discover waste or fraud is because employees are brave enough to stand up to the wrongdoers and expose their offenses. Without these whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot the bill.

This bill is long overdue. I have previously introduced similar legislation but, unfortunately, those bills were never brought up in Committee. I hope that the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will examine this legislation closely and expeditiously report it to the full Senate so we can ensure employees of the Legislative Branch that they are protected from any reprisals related to protected whistleblowing.

Now, it's been a number of years since the Congressional Accountability Act was signed into law by President Clinton, so I would like to remind my colleagues why we passed this law. It was a time very similar to today, the American people were demanding more from their elected officials in Washington and wanted accountability and transparency in all branches of Government. I believed then, as I do now, that Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and apply the various labor and employment laws that we enforce on other branches of government

and businesses all across the country to ourselves. The Congressional Accountability Act did just that.

It applied a number of important laws to Congress, including, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, as well as some provisions of title 5 related to Federal service labor- management relations. It also created the Office of Compliance in the Legislative Branch that oversees application of these important laws to the Legislative Branch and ensures that employee's rights under these laws are protected. While the Congressional Accountability Act was a good start, the Office of Compliance has recommended additional laws be applied to the Legislative Branch, including the Whistleblower Protection Act.

We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the Executive Branch. It doesn't make sense not to extend these same protections to whistleblowers in our own backyard. This bill will, very simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers in the other branches of government already possess. It does this by simply adding the Whistleblower Protection Act to the preexisting list of statutes that are applied to the Legislative Branch by the Congressional Accountability Act. This is a straightforward and simple solution to ensure that employees of the Legislative Branch are not without vital whistleblower protections.

I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator McCaskill in supporting this bill to ensure that those who help us in the fight to hold government accountable are not punished for their efforts.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will keep the Federal Government accountable.

Whistleblowers are the key to unlocking the secrets of wrongdoing because they have access to information about how the frauds were perpetrated and can help lead authorities in the right direction to uncover the frauds. However, for their brave efforts, they are often the victims of retaliation and are removed from their jobs by supervisors who don't want the wrongdoing uncovered. I have often said whistleblowers are as welcome as skunks at a Sunday picnic, despite the fact that all they do is bring forward the truth. This is wrong and that is why I have supported strong whistleblower protection laws during my time in Congress.

The landmark whistleblower law, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, WPA, provided rights and remedies to Executive Branch whistleblowers that are the victims of retaliation. I proudly cosponsored the WPA, but like many laws that are 20 years old, it needs to be updated. So, I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Akaka in the previous Congress to do just that. We are currently working to introduce similar legislation in this Congress. Despite this effort, there is still a critical gap in whistleblower protections for government employees, namely the lack of whistleblower protections for employees of the Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal Government. I am here today to start that discussion and introduce legislation that will provide the same whistleblower protection rights currently extended to Executive Branch employees to the Legislative Branch.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCaskill in introducing the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011. This important legislation simply adds whistleblower protections to the Legislative Branch by incorporating the WPA into the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a law I authored to bring Congress in line with many labor laws and workplace protections. I have long believed Congress should practice what it preaches, and this legislation will do just that.

A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as the elections this past November, is accountability and responsibility in Washington. In most instances, the only reason we discover waste or fraud is because employees are brave enough to stand up to the wrongdoers and expose their offenses. Without these whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot the bill.

This bill is long overdue. I have previously introduced similar legislation but, unfortunately, those bills were never brought up in Committee. I hope that the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will examine this legislation closely and expeditiously report it to the full Senate so we can ensure employees of the Legislative Branch that they are protected from any reprisals related to protected whistleblowing.

Now, it's been a number of years since the Congressional Accountability Act was signed into law by President Clinton, so I would like to remind my colleagues why we passed this law. It was a time very similar to today, the American people were demanding more from their elected officials in Washington and wanted accountability and transparency in all branches of Government. I believed then, as I do now, that Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and apply the various labor and employment laws that we enforce on other branches of government

and businesses all across the country to ourselves. The Congressional Accountability Act did just that.

It applied a number of important laws to Congress, including, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, as well as some provisions of title 5 related to Federal service labor- management relations. It also created the Office of Compliance in the Legislative Branch that oversees application of these important laws to the Legislative Branch and ensures that employee's rights under these laws are protected. While the Congressional Accountability Act was a good start, the Office of Compliance has recommended additional laws be applied to the Legislative Branch, including the Whistleblower Protection Act.

We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the Executive Branch. It doesn't make sense not to extend these same protections to whistleblowers in our own backyard. This bill will, very simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers in the other branches of government already possess. It does this by simply adding the Whistleblower Protection Act to the preexisting list of statutes that are applied to the Legislative Branch by the Congressional Accountability Act. This is a straightforward and simple solution to ensure that employees of the Legislative Branch are not without vital whistleblower protections.

I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator McCaskill in supporting this bill to ensure that those who help us in the fight to hold government accountable are not punished for their efforts.

Mr. President, today, we will confirm yet another of President Obama's judicial nominees. After today's vote, we will have confirmed five judicial nominees in the last 5 legislative days. We are moving swiftly in committee and on the Senate floor. Notwithstanding our quick pace, we hear from some that we are not moving fast enough. As I have said before, our side will continue to work in good faith to process consensus nominees. But we will not place quantity confirmed over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal judiciary and the American people to simply rubberstamp them.

Today we will vote on Judge James Boasberg to sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg is not the first individual nominated to fill this vacancy. This seat became vacant in May 2008, when Judge Thomas F. Hogan took senior status. President Bush nominated Jeffrey Adam Rosen in June 2008. He was unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. He had over 20 years of experience in private practice, principally involved in complex business litigation matters. He had more than 5 years of public service, having served as general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Despite his qualifications, Mr. Rosen's nomination languished in committee for over 6 months.

While I am disappointed Mr. Rosen was not given any consideration, I am pleased to be able to support Judge Boasberg. He was nominated last June and had his hearing in September. He was reported out of committee last December, during the lameduck session, and the Senate was unable to complete action on the nomination. The committee moved quickly on his renomination this year, reporting him out of committee last month.

Judge Boasberg presently serves as an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Following the Senate's unanimous confirmation, President George W. Bush appointed him to this position in August, 2002.

Judge Boasberg earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale College, his master of studies from Oxford University, and his juris doctor from Yale Law School. After completing law school, he clerked for the Honorable Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then went into private practice, working as a litigator on complex business and white-collar defense matters.

Judge Boasberg also served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. There he prosecuted criminal matters and specialized in homicide cases. He has received a unanimous well qualified rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

I am pleased this seat is being filled with someone who has concrete knowledge of what it takes to be a judge, and I hope Judge Boasberg continues to work hard to serve the American people.

I congratulate the nominee and his family on this important lifetime appointment.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on our side.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, soon we will be voting on another nominee for district court. We continue our rapid pace in which the Senate has been confirming President Obama's judicial nominees. This vote will mark the 11th judicial nominee to be confirmed this Congress. That is more than double the number confirmed in the 108th Congress, which only saw five confirmations at this point. Obviously, actions speak louder than words. So far, our actions have had concrete results.

The Judiciary Committee met this morning and reported six more judicial nominees. That puts the total at 22 nominees reported favorably so far. We continue to hold hearings every 2 weeks and have heard from 31 nominees currently pending before the Senate. As I have said in the past, we will continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process. However, we will continue to do our due diligence in evaluating the nominees. What we will not do is put quantity confirmed over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal Judiciary and the American people to allow rubberstamping.

Just this past Monday, the Senate confirmed three district court judges. In his statement for the record, the chairman of the committee, Senator Leahy, stated:

Nearly one out of every eight Federal judgeships is vacant.

This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to

have a fair hearing in court.

However, what the chairman neglected to mention is the fact that President Obama has not put forth a nominee for every vacancy the court currently faces. In fact, of the 95 judicial vacancies, the Senate only has 45 nominees. That is 53 percent of vacancies without a nominee from the White House.

Today, we vote on a nominee to sit on the Western District of North Carolina court. While this is an important vacancy, and a vacancy we need to fill, it is not a judicial emergency. However, there is a judicial emergency in the Eastern District of North Carolina. That seat, which has been vacant since 2005, does not have a nominee currently pending. President Bush nominated Thomas Alvin Farr to that seat twice, but he was never afforded a hearing, let alone an up-or- down vote. I am happy this side of the aisle is not repeating the same regrettable treatment Mr. Farr received.

With regard to Mr. Cogburn, the nominee we will be voting on, the American Bar Association has rated him ``majority well qualified, minority qualified.'' He received his B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his juris doctorate from Cumberland School of Law. Mr. Cogburn has practiced law in many capacities. Through his work in private practice, he has worked on a wide range of issues, including criminal litigation, personal injury, civil litigation, and a significant amount of mediation.

As an assistant U.S. attorney for over a decade, Mr. Cogburn gained substantial appellate experience. While there, he also served as drug task force attorney and chief assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Cogburn also holds judicial experience. He was appointed to serve an 8-year term as a U.S. magistrate judge by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

After careful evaluation, the Judiciary Committee reported this fine nominee by voice vote on February 3, 2011. I congratulate Mr. Cogburn and his family on this important lifetime appointment and his willingness to continue in public service.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important civil justice legislation. This legislation is desperately needed for several reasons--the most important of which is to cut down on the costs and expenses that are preventing private businesses from creating jobs for our fellow citizens during these difficult times.

The billions of dollars wasted on frivolous lawsuits cost Americans jobs and severely damage our economy. The precise cost of America's lawsuit culture is staggering. The tort system's direct costs in 2002 were $233 billion, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Today that number is even higher; the annual direct cost of American tort litigation exceeds $250 billion.

Indeed, frivolous lawsuits are helping to prevent the ``innovation'' that the Obama administration is touting as the key to ``job creation'' and economic recovery. For example, firms with recent initial public offerings are most at risk to be sued. In fact, companies are most likely to be sued in their second year of public trading. In other words, the very corporations most likely to be the source of significant new job creation are at the highest risk of being sued just when they are seeking expansion capital through public offerings.

In particular, frivolous lawsuits hurt small businesses. Small businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the cost of health care as their top concerns, and both problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits.

Our front-line defense against frivolous lawsuits and the misuse of our legal system is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule is intended to deter frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning the offending party. The power of Rule 11 was diluted in 1993. This weakening is unacceptable to those of us who want to preserve courts as neutral forums for dispute resolution.

That is why I am introducing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011, ``LARA,'' which amends Rule 11 to restore its strength and ability to truly deter frivolous lawsuits. Senator Mike Lee of Utah is cosponsoring this bill.

Representative Lamar Smith, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is introducing an identical bill today in the House of Representatives.

Specifically, LARA takes three strong steps to help thwart frivolous lawsuits.

First, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that made sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.

One of the most harmful changes that took effect in 1993 was to make sanctions for proven violations of Rule 11 discretionary. This means that if a party files a lawsuit simply to harass another party, and the court decides that this is in fact the case, the offending party still might not be sanctioned. This is unacceptable. The offending

party might not be punished at all, which provides no deterrence for the offending party or anyone else who wants to misuse the courts. My bill reinstates the requirement that if there is a violation of Rule 11, there are sanctions.

Second, LARA requires that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Those monetary sanctions will include the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the victim of the frivolous lawsuit.

Finally, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been served.

Because of Rule 11's ``safe harbor'' provision, many frivolous claims are never fully reviewed by federal judges. Under the ``safe harbor'' provision, a person who is victimized by a frivolous claim must hire an attorney to draft a motion for sanctions. That motion cannot, however, be filed immediately. Rather, under Rule 11(c)(2), the motion is served on the offending attorney 21-days before it is filed. During that period, the offending attorney can withdraw the frivolous claim and thereby avoid any sanction. LARA would prevent such injustices by eliminating the ``safe harbor'' provision.

Although LARA would only amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the procedural rules in State courts are often amended to track changes in the Federal rules. Consequently, it is our hope that many states would amend their rules governing frivolous lawsuits to reflect the changes implemented by LARA, just as they did when Rule 11 was last changed in 1993.

Without the serious threat of punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits, innocent individuals and companies will continue to face the harsh economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claimants through monetary settlements is often cheaper than litigating the case. This perverse dynamic not only results in legalized extortion, but it leads to increases in the insurance premiums all individuals and businesses must pay. That is money that could be going to create new jobs.

I want to work with those who are willing to be reasonable. I know that some have expressed concerns with similar bills in the past. We have considered those concerns and have drafted a bill that takes them into account. For example, this bill expressly provides that nothing in it ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws.''

Requiring mandatory sanctions is not an extreme position. It is a reasonable and effective solution to the problem of runaway frivolous lawsuits.

Indeed, a mandatory sanctions requirement is currently the law in the area of securities litigation. In 1995, we enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, PSLRA, over President Clinton's veto. It essentially reinstates the 1983 version of Rule 11 for the purposes of securities litigation that falls within its coverage, and makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory. Upon a final adjudication of a case, the PSLRA requires courts to make written findings on whether the parties have complied with Rule 11. In other words, no motion for sanctions needs to be filed.

At the conclusion of the case, a judge must review the case for compliance with Rule 11 and, if he finds that there has been a violation, he must impose sanctions.

So addressing the damaging impact of frivolous lawsuits has had bipartisan support in the past. That bipartisan support should be even greater during these difficult economic times.

Let's look at a few examples of the type of lawsuits that businesses must contend with:

In July 2009, three New Jersey residents, backed by an advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit against several hot dog manufacturers claiming they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot dogs. None of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer. The lawsuit sought damages in the amount of the total cost of the plaintiffs' hot dog purchases and a requirement that the companies place a new label on packages and advertising reading: ``Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.''

The case was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thus, a Federal court held that the plaintiffs had failed to even allege a claim, as a matter of law.

In another case, a customer alleged that a wild bird ``attacked'' her while in a Lowe's outdoor garden center, causing her head injuries. She claimed negligence and a violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act. She maintained that the wild birds created a dangerous condition on the property and that Lowe's failed to exercise ordinary care to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe and failed to prevent the birds from entering the garden center.

A Federal court entered summary judgment in favor of Lowe's holding that a ``reasonable plaintiff'' either would have noticed the birds or understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with plants. The court also held that Lowe's was not the ``owner'' of the birds, a necessary element of the customer's statutory claim.

These are just two examples of the scores of frivolous lawsuits that American businesses must contend with each year.

Requiring sanctions when judges find lawsuits are frivolous will deter these types of cases from being brought. The savings will result in cost savings for businesses and new jobs for American workers.

The time for words and rhetoric has long since passed. If the President means what he is saying about creating jobs, then we must take action. We need to help private business spur job creation. LARA is action. LARA is a step in the right direction.

I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important civil justice legislation. This legislation is desperately needed for several reasons--the most important of which is to cut down on the costs and expenses that are preventing private businesses from creating jobs for our fellow citizens during these difficult times.

The billions of dollars wasted on frivolous lawsuits cost Americans jobs and severely damage our economy. The precise cost of America's lawsuit culture is staggering. The tort system's direct costs in 2002 were $233 billion, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Today that number is even higher; the annual direct cost of American tort litigation exceeds $250 billion.

Indeed, frivolous lawsuits are helping to prevent the ``innovation'' that the Obama administration is touting as the key to ``job creation'' and economic recovery. For example, firms with recent initial public offerings are most at risk to be sued. In fact, companies are most likely to be sued in their second year of public trading. In other words, the very corporations most likely to be the source of significant new job creation are at the highest risk of being sued just when they are seeking expansion capital through public offerings.

In particular, frivolous lawsuits hurt small businesses. Small businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the cost of health care as their top concerns, and both problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits.

Our front-line defense against frivolous lawsuits and the misuse of our legal system is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule is intended to deter frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning the offending party. The power of Rule 11 was diluted in 1993. This weakening is unacceptable to those of us who want to preserve courts as neutral forums for dispute resolution.

That is why I am introducing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011, ``LARA,'' which amends Rule 11 to restore its strength and ability to truly deter frivolous lawsuits. Senator Mike Lee of Utah is cosponsoring this bill.

Representative Lamar Smith, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is introducing an identical bill today in the House of Representatives.

Specifically, LARA takes three strong steps to help thwart frivolous lawsuits.

First, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that made sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.

One of the most harmful changes that took effect in 1993 was to make sanctions for proven violations of Rule 11 discretionary. This means that if a party files a lawsuit simply to harass another party, and the court decides that this is in fact the case, the offending party still might not be sanctioned. This is unacceptable. The offending

party might not be punished at all, which provides no deterrence for the offending party or anyone else who wants to misuse the courts. My bill reinstates the requirement that if there is a violation of Rule 11, there are sanctions.

Second, LARA requires that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Those monetary sanctions will include the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the victim of the frivolous lawsuit.

Finally, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been served.

Because of Rule 11's ``safe harbor'' provision, many frivolous claims are never fully reviewed by federal judges. Under the ``safe harbor'' provision, a person who is victimized by a frivolous claim must hire an attorney to draft a motion for sanctions. That motion cannot, however, be filed immediately. Rather, under Rule 11(c)(2), the motion is served on the offending attorney 21-days before it is filed. During that period, the offending attorney can withdraw the frivolous claim and thereby avoid any sanction. LARA would prevent such injustices by eliminating the ``safe harbor'' provision.

Although LARA would only amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the procedural rules in State courts are often amended to track changes in the Federal rules. Consequently, it is our hope that many states would amend their rules governing frivolous lawsuits to reflect the changes implemented by LARA, just as they did when Rule 11 was last changed in 1993.

Without the serious threat of punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits, innocent individuals and companies will continue to face the harsh economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claimants through monetary settlements is often cheaper than litigating the case. This perverse dynamic not only results in legalized extortion, but it leads to increases in the insurance premiums all individuals and businesses must pay. That is money that could be going to create new jobs.

I want to work with those who are willing to be reasonable. I know that some have expressed concerns with similar bills in the past. We have considered those concerns and have drafted a bill that takes them into account. For example, this bill expressly provides that nothing in it ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws.''

Requiring mandatory sanctions is not an extreme position. It is a reasonable and effective solution to the problem of runaway frivolous lawsuits.

Indeed, a mandatory sanctions requirement is currently the law in the area of securities litigation. In 1995, we enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, PSLRA, over President Clinton's veto. It essentially reinstates the 1983 version of Rule 11 for the purposes of securities litigation that falls within its coverage, and makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory. Upon a final adjudication of a case, the PSLRA requires courts to make written findings on whether the parties have complied with Rule 11. In other words, no motion for sanctions needs to be filed.

At the conclusion of the case, a judge must review the case for compliance with Rule 11 and, if he finds that there has been a violation, he must impose sanctions.

So addressing the damaging impact of frivolous lawsuits has had bipartisan support in the past. That bipartisan support should be even greater during these difficult economic times.

Let's look at a few examples of the type of lawsuits that businesses must contend with:

In July 2009, three New Jersey residents, backed by an advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit against several hot dog manufacturers claiming they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot dogs. None of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer. The lawsuit sought damages in the amount of the total cost of the plaintiffs' hot dog purchases and a requirement that the companies place a new label on packages and advertising reading: ``Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.''

The case was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thus, a Federal court held that the plaintiffs had failed to even allege a claim, as a matter of law.

In another case, a customer alleged that a wild bird ``attacked'' her while in a Lowe's outdoor garden center, causing her head injuries. She claimed negligence and a violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act. She maintained that the wild birds created a dangerous condition on the property and that Lowe's failed to exercise ordinary care to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe and failed to prevent the birds from entering the garden center.

A Federal court entered summary judgment in favor of Lowe's holding that a ``reasonable plaintiff'' either would have noticed the birds or understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with plants. The court also held that Lowe's was not the ``owner'' of the birds, a necessary element of the customer's statutory claim.

These are just two examples of the scores of frivolous lawsuits that American businesses must contend with each year.

Requiring sanctions when judges find lawsuits are frivolous will deter these types of cases from being brought. The savings will result in cost savings for businesses and new jobs for American workers.

The time for words and rhetoric has long since passed. If the President means what he is saying about creating jobs, then we must take action. We need to help private business spur job creation. LARA is action. LARA is a step in the right direction.

I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I want to discuss an important component of the patent reform legislation that protects against frivolous and vexatious litigation arising from qui tam suits for false patent markings. The bill before the Senate abolishes this qui tam procedure and I would like to discuss why I support doing so, even though I am generally a strong proponent of using the qui tam mechanism to protect American taxpayers.

The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act specifically allow the government to intervene and control litigation when the government has been harmed through false or fraudulent billing. The qui tam provisions of the patent law do not.

In fact, a recent Federal court decision struck down the qui tam provisions of the patent law as unconstitutional because the false patent marking statute does not give the executive branch sufficient control over the litigation to ensure that the President can ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''

As I mentioned, the False Claims Act is completely different. The Justice Department has the right to intervene, to prosecute, or to dismiss a False Claims Act qui tam. I was instrumental in ensuring such controls on frivolous lawsuits were inserted into the False Claims Act and the absence of similar controls in the false patent marking law is problematic.

I would not want anyone watching the patent reform bill to conclude that Congress will weaken or undermine the False Claims Act qui tam statute because we have stricken a flawed qui tam provision in the patent bill. I will vigorously defend the False Claims Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. The False Claims Act is the Federal Government's strongest weapon to protecting the taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse. It would be a serious miscalculation for anyone to imply or attempt to characterize my support for the removal of the patent qui tam as a starting point for striking or reforming the False Claims Act qui tam provisions.

The False Claims Act qui tam provisions have helped the Federal Government recover over $28 billion since I amended it to add the qui tam provisions in 1986. With the recent amendments to the False Claims Act that I, along with Senator Leahy, included in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, the False Claims Act will continue to serve as the Federal Government's most valuable tool to combat fraud in government programs for decades to come.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support final passage on the America Invents Act. The Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings on the need for patent reform, and has done a lot of work over the past several Congresses. We have had a good process on the floor. We adopted several amendments to improve the bill. We had votes on amendments and a pretty good open process, which we have not seen much of in the last few years. We have a good bipartisan bill--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has successfully brought Senators and industry together to craft this compromise legislation. Now I urge my colleagues to support final passage on this important bill so we can conclude our work in the Senate.

The America Invents Act will protect inventors' rights and encourage innovation and investment in our economy. It will improve transparency and third party participation in the patent review process, which will strengthen patent quality and reduce costs. The bill will institute beneficial changes to the patent approval and review process, and will curb litigation abuses and improve certainty for investors and innovators. It will help companies do business more efficiently on an international basis.

The America Invents Act will also help small entities in their patent applications and provide for reduced fees for microentities and small businesses. The bill will prevent patents from being issued on claims for tax strategies, which can add unwarranted fees on taxpayers simply for attempting to comply with the Tax Code.

Finally, the America Invents Act will enhance operations of the Patent and Trademark Office with administrative reforms and will give the Office fee setting authority to reduce backlogs. It will end fee diversion, which will improve the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to manage its affairs and allocate resources where they are most needed.

I thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for their hard work on this bill. Without their leadership, we would not be where we are today. I thank Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Coburn. They were instrumental in making improvements to the bill. I also wish to acknowledge the Senate Judiciary Committee staff for their efforts on this bill: in particular, Bruce Cohen, Aaron Cooper, and Curtis LeGeyt of Chairman Leahy's staff, Matt Sandgren of Senator Hatch's staff, Joe Matal of Senator Kyl's staff, and Sarah Beth Groshart of Senator Coburn's staff. I especially thank Kolan Davis and Rita Lari Jochum of my staff for their good work on this bill.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote for the America Invents Act. This is a bill that will spur inventions, create innovative new products and services, and stimulate job creation. This bill will help upgrade and strengthen our patent system so America can stay competitive in an increasingly global environment. I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted bill.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.