Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Feinstein, in cosponsoring the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011. I believe we have an ongoing moral obligation to ensure our young people have every opportunity to grow up without being accosted by drug pushers at every turn, whether on TV, in the movies, or on the way to school.

This bipartisan legislation--which has previously passed the Senate with unanimous consent--comes in response to ongoing warnings issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, about highly addictive and dangerous drugs being colored, packaged, and flavored in ways that appear to be designed to attract use by children. As ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and cochairman of the Senate Drug Caucus, I can tell you that the most at-risk population for drug abuse is our young people. Sadly, recent youth surveys are indicating youth drug use is increasing. Research has shown time and again that if you can keep a child drug free until they turn 20, chances are very slim that they will ever try or become addicted to drugs. Unfortunately, unscrupulous drug dealers are all too aware of statistics like these and have developed new techniques and marketing gimmicks to lure in younger users. As a parent and grandparent, this is extremely troubling.

Drug dealers are now flavoring and disguising drugs to make them appear and taste like candy. For instance, some drugs that have been recovered by the DEA and local law enforcement have been flavored to taste like strawberry and are known on the street as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Other flavors, such as lemon, coconut, cinnamon and chocolate are clearly being used to make highly addictive drugs like meth and cocaine seem less harmful and more appealing. Soft drinks are also being laced with THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and marketed with names like ``Canna Cola'' and ``Doc Weed.'' Law enforcement has also recovered drugs that have unique designs which could be appealing to children. For example, Ecstasy pills imprinted with President Obama's likeness or with images of popular cartoon characters have been seized in raids. These flavored and disguised drugs are also being marketed in smaller amounts, making it cheaper and more accessible to children. According to an article in USA Today, at least 8 States have reported instances involving candy flavored drugs, and many law enforcement officials are expecting these deadly substances to infiltrate their States in the near future.

The DEA has made an effort to stop these practices. For example, the DEA arrested three men in an undercover operation in California where candy flavored cocaine was being distributed. The DEA seized at least four different flavors of cocaine along with other dangerous substances. The estimated street value of the flavored cocaine seized in this operation was $272,400. The DEA also arrested 12 people in connection to a marijuana-laced candy and soft drink operation in 2006. The marijuana-laced candy that was seized in this operation was packaged to look like well known brand name candy bars. These drug busts further illustrate the fact that drug dealers will stop at nothing to hook a new generation on these deadly substances.

Currently, Federal law enhances the criminal penalties that apply when a person sells drugs to anyone under the age of 21. When this occurs, the Federal penalties are doubled--or tripled for a repeat offense--and a mandatory minimum of at least 1 year must also apply. However, this penalty applies only to someone who actually sells drugs to someone under 21.

The Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act would increase the prison sentence to anyone who knowingly or intentionally manufactures or creates with the intent to distribute a controlled substance that has been flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under 18 years of age. The DEA busts are prime examples of why we need this bipartisan bill to keep drug dealers from peddling their poison to our children.

The fight against deadly drugs is an ongoing struggle. In light of the fact that youth drug use is increasing we must do all we can to protect the most vulnerable among us. We must send a clear message to those wishing to prey on our youth that you risk serious prison time when you target our future.

Although this bill was passed out of the Senate unanimously in 2010, the House never passed the bill in the 111th Congress. I ask that my colleagues join us again in support of this important legislation and pass the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act, and I encourage the House of Representatives to take up this important bill and help remove these dangerous candy flavored drugs from our communities.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Feinstein, in cosponsoring the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011. I believe we have an ongoing moral obligation to ensure our young people have every opportunity to grow up without being accosted by drug pushers at every turn, whether on TV, in the movies, or on the way to school.

This bipartisan legislation--which has previously passed the Senate with unanimous consent--comes in response to ongoing warnings issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, about highly addictive and dangerous drugs being colored, packaged, and flavored in ways that appear to be designed to attract use by children. As ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and cochairman of the Senate Drug Caucus, I can tell you that the most at-risk population for drug abuse is our young people. Sadly, recent youth surveys are indicating youth drug use is increasing. Research has shown time and again that if you can keep a child drug free until they turn 20, chances are very slim that they will ever try or become addicted to drugs. Unfortunately, unscrupulous drug dealers are all too aware of statistics like these and have developed new techniques and marketing gimmicks to lure in younger users. As a parent and grandparent, this is extremely troubling.

Drug dealers are now flavoring and disguising drugs to make them appear and taste like candy. For instance, some drugs that have been recovered by the DEA and local law enforcement have been flavored to taste like strawberry and are known on the street as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Other flavors, such as lemon, coconut, cinnamon and chocolate are clearly being used to make highly addictive drugs like meth and cocaine seem less harmful and more appealing. Soft drinks are also being laced with THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and marketed with names like ``Canna Cola'' and ``Doc Weed.'' Law enforcement has also recovered drugs that have unique designs which could be appealing to children. For example, Ecstasy pills imprinted with President Obama's likeness or with images of popular cartoon characters have been seized in raids. These flavored and disguised drugs are also being marketed in smaller amounts, making it cheaper and more accessible to children. According to an article in USA Today, at least 8 States have reported instances involving candy flavored drugs, and many law enforcement officials are expecting these deadly substances to infiltrate their States in the near future.

The DEA has made an effort to stop these practices. For example, the DEA arrested three men in an undercover operation in California where candy flavored cocaine was being distributed. The DEA seized at least four different flavors of cocaine along with other dangerous substances. The estimated street value of the flavored cocaine seized in this operation was $272,400. The DEA also arrested 12 people in connection to a marijuana-laced candy and soft drink operation in 2006. The marijuana-laced candy that was seized in this operation was packaged to look like well known brand name candy bars. These drug busts further illustrate the fact that drug dealers will stop at nothing to hook a new generation on these deadly substances.

Currently, Federal law enhances the criminal penalties that apply when a person sells drugs to anyone under the age of 21. When this occurs, the Federal penalties are doubled--or tripled for a repeat offense--and a mandatory minimum of at least 1 year must also apply. However, this penalty applies only to someone who actually sells drugs to someone under 21.

The Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act would increase the prison sentence to anyone who knowingly or intentionally manufactures or creates with the intent to distribute a controlled substance that has been flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under 18 years of age. The DEA busts are prime examples of why we need this bipartisan bill to keep drug dealers from peddling their poison to our children.

The fight against deadly drugs is an ongoing struggle. In light of the fact that youth drug use is increasing we must do all we can to protect the most vulnerable among us. We must send a clear message to those wishing to prey on our youth that you risk serious prison time when you target our future.

Although this bill was passed out of the Senate unanimously in 2010, the House never passed the bill in the 111th Congress. I ask that my colleagues join us again in support of this important legislation and pass the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act, and I encourage the House of Representatives to take up this important bill and help remove these dangerous candy flavored drugs from our communities.

Mr. President, today we continue in our efforts to lessen the burden our overworked courts currently face. We are about to confirm three more judicial nominees. Two of the three nominees we will vote on tonight are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. With our action today, in only 22 days the Senate has been in session, the Senate has confirmed 10 nominees.

With these votes tonight, we will have confirmed 19 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees submitted in this Congress. This pace far exceeds the progress made at this point in the 108th Congress, which was the beginning of the third year of President Bush's Presidency. At this point, the 108th Congress had confirmed only 4 of the 48 nominations sent to the Senate, about an 8 percent confirmation rate.

Our fast pace on the floor is matched by our rapid pace in committee. We held our third nominations hearing this past Wednesday. We have now heard from 13 judicial nominees and have reported 16 favorably. Our work in committee and on the floor indicates a cooperative effort between me, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and our leadership. It is an indication of the progress that can be made when the President nominates consensus nominees.

We will continue in our efforts, but again, I would remind everyone that while we in the Senate are doing our part, the administration must also be engaged in this process. I would note that 24 of the 41 vacant seats deemed to be judicial emergencies have no nominee. Of the additional 54 vacancies, 28 have no nominee.

I am perplexed as to why the President would ignore these pending vacancies and instead spend time and resources to send up a nomination for a seat that will not be vacant for some time. I refer to the President's nomination, on February 16, 2011, of Scott Skavdahl, to be United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming. This seat will not be vacant until July 24, 2011, when the current judge will retire. I do not understand the administration's priorities when it comes to judicial nominations. Instead of focusing on nominations for future vacancies, I would hope the administration would use some common sense and direct its efforts towards nominating individuals for seats which are at least currently vacant.

With regard to the nominees on whom we will vote this evening, let me say a few words about each.

Judge Joseph Battaglia is nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of California. He presently serves in that district as a U.S. magistrate judge. He was first appointed to that position in 1993. In addition to serving as a magistrate judge, Judge Battaglia has served on the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, on the Ninth Circuit Executive Board of Magistrate Judges, and as a Magistrate Judge Observer on the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. In 2009, Judge Battaglia was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts as Magistrate Judge Observer to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Judge Battaglia received his B.A. from the U.S. International University and his J.D. from California Western School of Law. He spent almost two decades working in private practice, and also acted as an arbitrator for the San Diego Superior Court, serving on many panels. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Well-Qualified.''

This evening, we will also vote on two nominees to the Central District of Illinois. Both of these vacancies are considered to be judicial emergencies.

Judge James E. Shadid received his B.S. from Bradley University and his J.D. from the John Marshall Law School. Upon admission to the Illinois bar, Judge Shadid opened his own law practice. He maintained his law practice until 2001, when he was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill a vacancy on the Tenth Judicial Circuit. He was elected to a full term in 2002 and re-elected in 2008.

While in private practice, he served as a part-time public defender at the

Peoria County Public Defender's Office. He also served an assistant attorney general for the State of Illinois. He was appointed by Governor Jim Edgar to serve as a commissioner of the Court of Claims in Illinois. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Shadid as ``Qualified'' by a substantial majority, while a minority rated him ``Well Qualified.''

Also nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy for the Central District of Illinois is Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Judge Myerscough received her B.A. with honors, from Southern Illinois University, and her J.D. from Southern Illinois School of Law. Upon graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Harold A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Judge Myerscough was in private practice for approximately 6 years before being elected as an associate circuit court judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois. Judge Myerscough later became a circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. In 1998 she was elected as an appellate court justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Myerscough as ``Qualified.''

I congratulate these three nominees and wish them well in their public service as a U.S. district judge.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the balance of time on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for some little time after 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the American economy remains on an unsettled footing, as we all know. There are some real signs of economic recovery, but it shows a very fragile recovery. The consumer confidence level seems to be increasing, and that is good news. U.S. factory activity is up. That is good news. But also we are very nervous about the housing market remaining weak. The Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9 percent--maybe officially now 8.9 percent--and now our economy is facing a significant head wind due to rising energy prices.

Since the unrest began in Tunisia, our energy markets have rocked upward by the uprisings in Egypt and now in Libya. Libya produces only roughly 2 percent of the world's crude oil, with much of that going to Europe. But even with Libya producing such a small amount, it still makes a tremendous impact on the world market of oil. The uncertainty and fear about supplies, according to oil speculators, has driven crude prices to more than $100 a barrel. Prices at the pump were already high before the unrest in the Middle East. The events going on in North Africa and the Persian Gulf area just worsened the problem.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices jumped 19 cents during a 1-week period at the end of February. This is the second largest 1-week jump in more than 20 years. I think over the weekend we learned that gasoline, in a 2-week period of time, is up 33 cents. So Americans are now paying, on average, $3.51 a gallon for gas. That, obviously, is about 80 cents higher than this time last year.

The average cost to fill a tank of gas is likely around $50. We all know that for a family struggling to make ends meet, these are valuable dollars spent at the pump, with most of those dollars going overseas.

I am sure the Presiding Officer probably knows that before this rapid rise in the price of oil, we were spending $730 million a day to import oil. Obviously, that is now a much higher figure, probably close to $1 billion a day right now. Our country is at risk, our economy is at risk, our Nation's security is at risk; that is, economic security, but also it is related to our national security. Our ever-increasing reliance on foreign sources for energy is undermining our Nation's economic and national security. The activities in the Middle East over the last 6 weeks should be an alarm bell going off. It should, in fact, be a wake-up call. Let me be clear. I know that for our economy to grow and for business and individuals to thrive, we need access to reliable, affordable energy. I support an energy policy that I like to say is akin to a four-legged stool or another way of saying it is all of the above--obviously, all the sources of petroleum we can get our hands on, and more domestically, obviously, than import, all sorts of alternative energy. Conservation has to be a leg of that stool and, obviously, nuclear energy.

So to be repetitive: First, we have to have access to oil and gas resources here at home. Two years ago, when gas prices were so high, the rallying cry was ``drill here, drill now.'' It seems to me that still is a legitimate rallying cry for us with gas at $3.51 a gallon. The idea that we limit our access to our own resources, which in turn leads us to go hat in hand to foreign dictators such as Hugo Chavez and oil sheiks is ludicrous. It is silly to be sending more money overseas to give people resources to train terrorists to kill Americans.

We currently import more than 60 percent of our crude oil, and it doesn't have to be that way. I know we can't get to energy independence by drilling here and drilling now all by itself, but isn't it a little foolish to have our economy held hostage by events in Libya--North Africa generally--or the Persian Gulf area and particularly with Libya only supplying 2 percent of the world's oil?

The Obama administration needs to put an end to the existing policy of a de facto moratorium through permitting; that is, for drilling onshore and offshore of our own domestic supply. We need to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect workers and the environment. But permitting delays and obstacles should not prevent our Nation from moving forward to developing resources here at home.

I also support efforts to expand the use of clean coal and nuclear energy. I also support conservation efforts. I agree that the cheapest form of energy is the energy that doesn't have to be used. That is conservation. Here in the Senate, I have supported policies aimed at reducing energy use in homes and buildings through conservation and energy-efficient technologies. I see the value in reducing overall energy consumption.

I have also been a leader in the Senate in promoting alternative and renewable energy. Why? Because the supply of fossil fuels is a finite quantity. We must look to alternative and renewable resources so we can improve our energy and our national security. This includes supporting energy from wind, biomass, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and biofuels.

I would like to focus now on the effort to develop homegrown biofuels. For many years, Congress has realized the need to develop an alternative to fossil fuels, particularly as a means of reducing our dependence on that fossil fuel. One of the first priorities was a tax incentive to encourage the use of

homegrown ethanol. For over 100 years, the fossil fuel industry has had a monopoly on our transportation fuel. They built the market. They own the infrastructure. They weren't about to use a product they didn't manufacture, own or profit from. So Congress created a tax incentive to encourage big oil to use the product and make it available to their consumers. It was paired with an import tariff to make sure that only domestic ethanol receives the benefit of the tax incentive.

So the tax incentive and the tariff worked together to do two things: The incentive exists to encourage the use of domestic ethanol. The tariff exists to ensure that we aren't giving a tax incentive to already subsidized foreign ethanol.

In other words, wouldn't it be silly to have a tax incentive for the production of a domestic alternative energy and then allow the import of it, which would have taxpayers subsidizing an alternative form of energy coming in from another country? Well, that wouldn't make sense.

Together, these two approaches ensure that we don't replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence upon foreign ethanol. The incentive was created to encourage big oil to use a domestically produced product and a renewable product. In 2005, Congress created the Renewable Fuels Standard. The standard was created to ensure a minimum amount of renewable fuels was used in the fuel supply. It was strongly opposed by big oil, but it was enacted over their opposition.

In 2007, it was greatly expanded. It mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2022. But that decision, made in 2007, also limited the amount of ethanol that can be made from grain to 15 billion gallons.

One of the criticisms I hear occasionally is that the ethanol receives both an incentive and a mandate. So I think we should address that point.

First, while the mandate requires that the fuel be used, it does not mandate that the ethanol be produced domestically. The incentive acts as an encouragement to use homegrown products. It increases economic activity at home and works to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. It doesn't do any good if you are importing a domestic renewable fuel if it can be done here locally, creating the jobs here.

Secondly, the mandate acts as a floor to ethanol use. Without the incentive, we would consume a bare minimum. The incentive encourages ethanol use beyond the mandate.

Some in the environmental community are quick to raise objections to the biofuels mandate as well as the incentive. I would like to suggest to them that this is a clear example of limitless hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in this town. Many of the loudest voices against these policies are the same voices who lobby me for tax incentives and also mandates for wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy.

I happen to be a strong supporter of electricity generated from wind and other renewable sources. I first authored the production tax credit for wind in 1992. Over the years, it has been expanded to include other types of resources. Since as far back as 2003, environmental advocacy groups have been pushing for a renewable portfolio standard, which is a mandate that utilities around the country use a certain amount of wind or other types of alternative energy instead of coal in the production of electricity.

So now what do we hear? They want the production tax credit for wind and other renewable electricity and a mandate that it be produced. Yet they oppose these same policies for biofuels. That is an inconsistency. That seems to be an intellectually dishonest approach; that they would like to have this Senator support mandates for wind as well as a tax incentive for wind but lobbying against this Senator's approach to having a tax incentive for other alternative energies as well as a mandate.

I have been a champion of ethanol and biofuels for a long time. I am well aware of the positive role ethanol is playing to create a cleaner environment. It is improving our economic and national security and it is creating jobs and economic activity in rural America. In 2010, nearly 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the United States contained some ethanol. The 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the United States reduced our oil imports by 445 million barrels of oil.

After domestic oil production and imports from Canada, U.S. ethanol production is the third largest source of transportation fuel--what we use in internal combustion engines. U.S. ethanol production is larger than what we import from Saudi Arabia or even from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Without domestic biofuels, we would be on bended knees even more than we are today, begging others for oil.

Just think what has developed in the 2 weeks of Libya. We have OPEC having to go to Saudi Arabia to make up the difference, just because of 2 percent of the oil production being affected. Why would we want to be more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, particularly for our national security?

Without domestic biofuels it seems to me that we would be on bended knees even more than we are today, begging others for oil. Ethanol is the only reliable, legitimate alternative to crude oil. Domestic ethanol currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of our transportation fuel. There is no other renewable fuel that comes close to achieving the economic, environmental, and national security benefits currently delivered by this biofuel that we call ethanol.

There are other well-funded misinformation campaigns underway to undermine the only alternative to crude oil. Big oil has been joined in recent years by opportunistic grocery manufacturers who hope to find a scapegoat in their desire to increase profits and raise food prices. They did this just 2 years ago, when corn was $7. They scapegoated ethanol. They needed a cover to raise the price of food and then, within 7 months, when the price of corn was down to half that price, $3.50 per bushel, did you see the price of food come down? No. You are going to find the same thing now.

These people continue to perpetuate the same tired, baseless arguments to try to undermine our efforts toward energy independence. They are more interested in protecting market share and profits than national economic security.

Over the next few weeks I am going to do everything I can to talk about this issue, to educate the public on the benefits of domestic biofuels. I am not going to sit quietly while the energy, environmental, and national security benefits of ethanol are scoffed at. I intend to beat back every false attack. The American public deserves an honest, fact-based discussion about the benefits of reducing our dependence on people such as Hugo Chavez and Muammar Qadhafi. They deserve to hear the benefits of reducing our dependence on dirty fossil fuel.

I look forward to continuing this effort and invite dialog from any of my colleagues.

Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the committee. I ask that people on my side of the aisle not support the Feinstein amendment.

At this point, I move to table the Feinstein amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I understand there are questions about what the tax strategies portion of the bill does and who it impacts. So I want to take a few minutes to address those questions.

In simple terms, a tax strategy is any method for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability based upon the tax law--including interpretations and applications of the Internal Revenue Code, regulations, and related guidance.

A tax strategy can be as simple as a plan to buy tax-exempt bonds or invest in an IRA to reduce your tax liability or as complex as some sort of sale-leaseback tax shelter involving multiple domestic and foreign corporations and partnerships.

A tax strategy patent, which is what we are talking about in this bill, is just that--a patent on a particular tax strategy.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from a publication called the Tax Adviser. This article provides some examples of tax strategies that should not be patented.

Tax strategies are bad because they allow the tax law to be patented. A patent gives the holder the exclusive right to exclude others from using the patented invention. A tax strategy patent makes taxpayers choose between paying more than legally required in taxes or providing a windfall to a tax strategy patentholder by paying a royalty to comply with the tax law.

Tax strategy patents add another layer of complexity to the tax laws by requiring taxpayers or their advisers to conduct patent searches and exposing them to potential patent infringement lawsuits.

If a tax strategy patent is granted for a tax shelter designed to illegally evade taxes, the fact that a patent was granted may mislead unknowing taxpayers into believing the obvious: That the strategy is valid under the tax law when, in fact, it might not be.

Tax strategies are not like other inventions because everyone wants to pay less tax. Tax strategy patents are on the rise, which then means more and more legal tax strategies are unavailable or, obviously, more expensive for more and more taxpayers.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter. This letter, which is from a coalition of 15 consumer groups, including the umbrella group for public accountants, the Tax Justice Center, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, provides more information on why tax strategy patents are bad for taxpayers.

Section 14 of the bill, which has been before the Senate for the last week or more, prevents patenting of tax law. It provides that a strategy that relies on the tax law to reduce, to avoid, or to defer tax liability cannot be novel or nonobvious.

So a strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability will be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art for purposes of evaluating an invention under section 102 or section 103 of the bill that is before us. This ensures that taxpayers and their advisers will then be guaranteed equal access to the tax laws, and that is obviously the fair way to do it. It is the commonsense way to do it.

So I wish to be clear that tax preparation software is not a tax strategy. Senior policy and examination staff from the Patent and Trademark Office agree that such software is not a tax strategy.

I also have letters from H&R Block, KPMG LLP, and Grant Thornton that state that the underlying language does not impact their software patents. Again, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

However, now, in order to allay the concerns of Intuit, makers of Turbo Tax, I have worked with Senator Baucus to make clear that tax preparation software such as Turbo Tax is not a tax strategy.

Financial management software, however, is a little murkier. While products such as Quicken and QuickBooks are not tax strategies, tax strategies can be embedded in financial management products and software. The investment banks and the law firms that have patented tax strategies often use software that could be deemed financial management software. The Tax Adviser article I mentioned earlier and got unanimous consent to have printed in the Record describes some of these. With financial management software, patent claims that include inventions that are severable from tax strategies may be entitled to patent protection, but the tax strategy itself will remain available to all taxpayers.

So it is important to protect intellectual property rights for true tax preparation and financial management software. However, we must be sure to protect the rights of taxpayers to have equal access to legal tax strategies.

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

Mr. President, do we report it first and then object or do we object even to the reporting of it? I heard the Presiding Officer say report the amendment.

OK. I object on behalf of Senator Coburn of Oklahoma.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wish to say as manager of my side of the aisle that we support this. We think both of these amendments are good amendments and that we ought to move forward. I appreciate very much the majority working with us to accomplish this goal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, supporting what the chairman has just said, outside of the fact that there might be one or two controversial nongermane amendments to this legislation, we have to look at the underlying product. The underlying product is very bipartisan. Most economic interests within our country are supporting this patent reform legislation. Everybody agrees it is something that probably should have been passed a Congress ago.

I join my Democratic manager and the chairman of the committee in urging Senators on my side of the aisle who have either germane amendments or nongermane amendments to come to the floor and offer them so the underlying piece of legislation can be passed and sent on to the House of Representatives.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 454 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud. These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs.

Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In 2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70 billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4 billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have a very long way to go.

When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are those who don't even get caught.

Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system.

Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws. During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S. 2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle.

Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud.

There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are paid.

But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the last Congress.

The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through www.USAspending .gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including even some defense spending, is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense spending and most other government programs and what we allow the public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa, as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program. It is all taxpayers' dollars.

In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system.

The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Under current law, the government is required to

make payments for what is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if a claim is legitimate before a payment has to be made. The result is that this what we call prompt-payment rule requires that Medicare pay bad actors first and ask questions later, which leads to that pay-and-chase system I previously mentioned.

So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud, waste, and abuse.

In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud. Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is not something the inspector general can do today.

I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an incentive for bad actors to get around the rules.

In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration requirements for putting a drug on the market.

Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes formal action.

Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have the option to chase after the previous payments.

My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is being legally marketed.

Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that can't be done without a change in the law.

The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater protections to the taxpayers.

Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance.

Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these programs toward sustainability.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by cosponsoring it.

Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud. These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs.

Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In 2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70 billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4 billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have a very long way to go.

When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are those who don't even get caught.

Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system.

Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws. During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S. 2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle.

Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud.

There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are paid.

But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the last Congress.

The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through www.USAspending .gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including even some defense spending, is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense spending and most other government programs and what we allow the public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa, as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program. It is all taxpayers' dollars.

In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system.

The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Under current law, the government is required to

make payments for what is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if a claim is legitimate before a payment has to be made. The result is that this what we call prompt-payment rule requires that Medicare pay bad actors first and ask questions later, which leads to that pay-and-chase system I previously mentioned.

So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud, waste, and abuse.

In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud. Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is not something the inspector general can do today.

I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an incentive for bad actors to get around the rules.

In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration requirements for putting a drug on the market.

Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes formal action.

Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have the option to chase after the previous payments.

My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is being legally marketed.

Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that can't be done without a change in the law.

The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater protections to the taxpayers.

Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance.

Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these programs toward sustainability.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by cosponsoring it.

Madam President, I would like to express my strong support for Senator Coburn's proposal to

end Patent and Trademark Office fee diversion. It is a commonsense, entrepreneur friendly solution to many of the problems plaguing the Patent and Trademark Office.

Over the years, we have heard numerous complaints from constituents about the long time it takes the Patent and Trademark Office to review patent applications and render a final disposition. It is my understanding that in most cases, it takes almost 3 years for the Patent and Trademark Office to make a final decision on an application which can be costly to the applicant.

We have also heard from Patent and Trademark Office officials about the difficulties that have arisen because of their lack of control over the agency's funding model. There are 1.2 million patent applications currently pending at the Patent and Trademark Office but not enough resources to tackle the workload. The patent application backlog situation, while improving, is still a significant problem.

Senator Coburn's proposal strikes at the heart of both of these concerns by creating a revolving fund at the Treasury Department where patent and trademark fees that are paid to the Patent and Trademark Office are directly allocated back to the office. That way those funds can be utilized in a fashion most beneficial to inventors, small businesses, and academic institutions.

At his confirmation hearing in 2009, Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos told the Judiciary Committee that one of the most immediate challenges facing the office was ``the need for a stable and sustainable funding model.'' The financial crisis affecting the Patent and Trademark Office is a direct result of its current funding structure. The Patent and Trademark Office receives no taxpayer funds-- it is solely funded by patent and trademark user fees. Yet, those fees are not deposited within the Patent and Trademark Office. They are instead diverted to the Treasury Department, forcing the Patent and Trademark Office to ask for funds generated by their own office to be appropriated back to them.

The Patent and Trademark Office often requests lower than the amount generated by patent and trademark fees, which results in any extra fees being diverted by Congress to address ``general revenue purposes.'' In fact, since 1992, Congress has diverted more than $750 million from the Patent and Trademark Office.

For example, as recent as 2007, 12 million user-fee generated dollars were diverted from the Patent and Trademark Office for ``other purposes.'' With 1.2 million patent applications pending--735,000 of which are simply waiting for a patent examiner to take a first action-- it is clear that the Patent and Trademark Office is in dire need of those funds. I believe those fees belong to the Patent and Trademark Office and are needed by their offices to make the patent and trademark process more accessible and efficient for America's innovators.

By ending fee diversion and allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to structure its own funding model, resources would be directly allocated to areas of most concern for both the Patent and Trademark Office and American innovators. The Coburn proposal does both, and ensures that the ever expanding backlog of unexamined patent applications and the timeframe for actual examination would be addressed in an efficient manner. It is time for Congress to take action and allow the Patent and Trademark Office to control the user fees that we think they deserve so they can effectively serve our Nation's inventors and small businesses.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 23. We probably have a lot of amendments, but right now we are talking about the bill. The America Invents Act is what it is called. I should express my gratitude to those others who have helped so much on this and, quite frankly, more involved on this bill than I have been, including Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, and Senator Kyl.

This is a bipartisan bill. Over the past 5 years or so, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been considering comprehensive patent reform. Chairman Leahy has engaged Senators on both sides of the aisle as well as a wide range of groups on the outside. His efforts have been pivotal in bringing together diverse views and crafting a reasonable compromise bill. In fact, the bill is supported by a large number of industries and other stakeholders from the U.S. patent community.

I commend the leadership of Chairman Leahy as well as the leadership of Senator Hatch for getting us to where we are at this point. Intellectual property rights are extremely important to our Nation's economy. An effective and efficient patent system will help promote innovation and technological advancement in America and make life better for us all. An effective and efficient patent system also will help provide stimulus for businesses and obviously generate many new jobs. Everyone agrees we need a well-functioning patent and trademark office within our government so that it can complete its work in a timely manner.

We should find ways to help the Patent and Trademark Office speed up the patent application process and eliminate the current backlog it is experiencing. We should reduce costs and decrease abusive litigation and improve certainty in the patent process and strengthen patent quality. The America Invents Act will help do all of these things.

The bipartisan bill before us will update and upgrade the U.S. patent system. It will enhance transparency and patent quality, and it will ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office has

the tools and funding it needs to cut its backlog and process patent applications more quickly.

The improvements to the patent system contained in our bill will help spur economic prosperity and job creation. I am pleased to support it.

Specifically, the bill would improve patent quality by establishing the opportunity for third parties to submit prior art and other information related to a pending application for consideration by a patent examiner. By allowing prior art to be submitted earlier in the process and explained to the office, patent examiners will be able to issue higher quality patents.

The bill would create a ``first window'' post-grant opposition proceeding open for 9 months after the grant of a patent. This would allow the Patent and Trademark Office to weed out patents that should not have been issued in the first place.

This new post-grant review process--which was recommended in a 2004 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences--would enable early challenges to patents, but also protect the rights of inventors and patent owners against endless litigation. The reason we want to ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office issues high quality patents is to incentivize investment in truly innovative technological advances and provide more certainty for investors in these inventions.

In addition, the bill would improve the current inter partes administrative process for challenging the validity of a patent. It would establish an adversarial inter partes review, with a higher threshold for initiating a proceeding and procedural safeguards to prevent a challenger from using the process to harass patent owners. It also would include a strengthened estoppel standard to prevent petitioners from raising in a subsequent challenge the same patent issues that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a prior challenge. The bill would significantly reduce the ability to use post- grant procedures for abusive serial challenges to patents. These new procedures would also provide faster, less costly alternatives to civil litigation to challenge patents.

The bill would institute a gatekeeping role for the court to assess the legal basis for damages and jury instructions. This would provide more certainty in damages calculation and promote uniformity and fairness. The bill also would transition the United States to a first- inventor to file system, simplifying the application process and coordinating it with our trading partners. This change will reduce costs and help improve the competitiveness of American inventors abroad.

Further, the bill would provide fee setting authority for the Patent Trademark Office Director to ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office is properly funded and can reduce its current backlog of patent applications.

The bill also would mandate a reduction of fees by 50 percent for small entities and 75 percent for micro-entities.

I want to particularly thank Chairman Leahy for working with me and Senator Baucus on a provision that would curtail patents on tax strategies. These patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. Tax strategy patents undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain ways to satisfy a taxpayer's legal obligations. If firms or individuals hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. Moreover, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage in our competitive market system.

Our provision would ensure that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code.

This provision was carefully drafted with the help of the Patent and Trademark Office not to cover software preparation and other software, tools or systems used to prepare tax or information returns or manage a taxpayer's finances.

In conclusion, the America Invents Act will protect inventors' rights and encourage innovation and investment in our economy. The bill will improve transparency and third party participation in the patent application review process. This, in turn, will strengthen patent quality and result in more fairness for both patent holders and patent challengers. The bill will institute beneficial changes to the patent process to curb litigation abuses and improve certainty for investors and innovators. It will help companies do business more efficiently on an international basis.

The bill also will enhance operations of the Patent and Trademark Office with administrative reforms and will give the office fee setting authority to reduce backlogs and better manage its business.

I am pleased to support this hard fought bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are continuing in our cooperative effort to fill vacancies in the Federal judiciary that have been designated as judicial emergencies. Today, the Senate will confirm two more of President Obama's judicial nominees. I am pleased we are moving forward on consensus nominees who will lessen the burden on our overworked courts.

My Republican colleagues and I continue to demonstrate our ability and desire to work with the President and the Democratic majority. We will have confirmed 7 judicial nominees in just 17 short days the Senate has been in session this Congress. We have reported out of committee a total of 15 judicial nominees, or 29 percent of the total nominees submitted. We have already held two hearings in committee on eight judicial nominees, with additional nominees scheduled for a hearing later this week. With this quick and productive pace, we have taken positive action on 55 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the committee this year.

I continue to work with the chairman to ensure all nominees are afforded a fair but thorough process, in a timely manner. I have appreciated the chairman's courtesy as we work together to set schedules and agendas. It is imperative that the administration work with us, as well, to fill vacancies. I am particularly concerned about those seats designated as judicial emergencies.

We continue to hear about the high judicial vacancy rate. I think the record is clear that the Senate is addressing that issue in vigorous manner. However, I continue to note that the President has failed to submit a nomination for over half of the vacancies. For judicial emergencies, over 57 percent of those seats have no nominee.

The two vacancies we are filling today took some time for a nomination to be sent to the Senate. Both seats became vacant in December 2008, at the end of the Bush administration. It took President Obama over a year to name a nominee for one seat, and nearly a year and a half to nominate for the other seat. So those who are concerned about a high vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary should pay attention to the nomination process, not just Senate confirmations.

I will say a few words about the nominees who are scheduled to have votes today. I thank our leadership for the reasonable arrangement that was reached to consider these nominations.

First, Amy Totenberg is nominated to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Georgia. She received her A.B., magna cum laude, and her J.D. from Harvard University. Upon graduation, she joined the Law Project as a partner, where she focused on Federal constitutional and employment law. She left the Law Project to become a solo practitioner where she maintained a general civil practice. Ms. Totenberg also served as municipal court judge for Atlanta, and was appointed by the Atlanta Board of Education as the first in-house general counsel for the Atlanta Public School District.

Over the past decade, while maintaining a solo practice, Ms. Totenberg has spent the majority of her time as a special master, monitor, and arbitrator/monitor for the U.S. district courts in Maryland and Washington, DC. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her ``Well- Qualified.''

Our second nominee, Steve C. Jones, is also nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Jones received his B.B.A. and his J.D. from the University of Georgia.

An experienced jurist, he began his legal career as an assistant district attorney for the Western judicial District of Georgia. In 1993, Judge Jones began service as a municipal court judge for Athens- Clarke County, GA. He was appointed by Governor Zell Miller, in 1995, to serve as a superior court judge for the Western Judicial Circuit. He was subsequently re-elected four times and is the presiding judge for the Felony Drug Court. Aside from his daily duties to the bench, Judge Jones was appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to serve on the Judicial Qualifications Commission. He also functioned as its chairman from 2002 to 2006. On and off the bench, Judge Jones has contributed to his community. He has invested time to help Georgia Legal Services, as well as a local anti-poverty initiative, Partners for a Prosperous Athens/OneAthens. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Well-Qualified.''

I support these two nominees, and congratulate them for their achievement and public service. I will continue to work with the chairman to move forward on consensus nominees, as we have done with these two nominations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.