Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will be passing the fiscal year 2011 intelligence authorization bill today.

This is now the second year in a row that we have been able to pass an authorization bill, after 6 years without doing so.

The bill authorizes funding for fiscal year 2011 for the 16 different agencies across the U.S. Government that make up the intelligence community. Unlike the fiscal year 2010 bill, which was enacted last October, this bill also contains a classified annex, which is the main mechanism the Intelligence Committee has to set the level of intelligence spending and direct how it is used.

The bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars above the President's request for intelligence activities for fiscal year 2011. However, in anticipation of tighter future budgets, the bill also takes some initial steps to prepare the intelligence community for likely smaller budgets and personnel decreases in the coming years.

The bill includes a number of legislative provisions, including:

A section requiring the intelligence community to prevent another security disaster, such as the recent leaks of classified information to Wikileaks, through the implementation of automated information technology threat detection programs that must be fully operational by the end of 2013;

A provision improving the ability of government agencies to detail personnel to needed areas of the intelligence community;

A commendation of intelligence community personnel for their role in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and reaffirming the commitment of the Congress to use the capabilities of the intelligence community to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

With the passage of this legislation, I believe we have restored the committee's ability to do oversight, and we are now on track to pass intelligence authorization bills each year.

I very much appreciate the close collaboration of Senator Chambliss, the vice chairman of the committee, in this effort. We have worked closely together to craft this legislation, and to secure its passage.

I also thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their efforts on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We worked well together on the fiscal year 2011 legislation to bring forward coordinated bills to the House and the Senate, and I look forward to continue to work together to enact the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the devastating impact that the House Republican budget would have on seniors, women, children, and families nationwide.

On April 15, 2011, House Republicans passed H. Con. Res. 34, Chairman Ryan's budget. Under the guise of entitlement reform and deficit reduction, House Republicans would instead ensure that the elderly, the poor, pregnant women, and children will be unable to afford health care.

The House Republican budget essentially ends the important entitlement programs Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, all while 72 percent of the budget cuts go to fund tax cuts for the rich. The budget claims $1.5 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already savings that will happen. If you discount those savings, the House Republican budget cuts $4.3 trillion over 10 years, while spending $4.2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy, resulting in only $100 billion in deficit reduction. To be blunt, House Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children while rewarding the wealthy.

This budget changes Medicaid from a State-Federal matching program that can adjust to changes in unemployment, poverty, or aging of the population, to a capped amount of Federal funds per State--a block grant. The budget also repeals the health reform law.

Medicaid is the health insurance program for low-income or disabled individuals and families, many of whom are parents in working families. This is not a population who can easily access health insurance elsewhere if their benefits are cut.

If Medicaid was converted to a block grant and the health reform law repealed, California stands to lose an estimated $147.8 billion over the next decade--$87.7 billion through Federal investments in Medi-Cal and $60.1 billion from the Medicaid expansion in health reform. Under the House Republican budget, California would see a 31-percent reduction in Federal dollars over the first 10 years, and by 2021 there would likely be a 41-percent cut in Medicaid enrollment. Mr. President, 7.2 million Medicaid beneficiaries in California could see either reduced benefits or increased out-of-pocket costs, and at least 2 million poor Californians could be kicked off the program.

Low-income pregnant women who depend on Medicaid as a key source of health coverage could be dropped from the program. By converting Medicaid into a block grant, House Republicans would inevitably force States to drop coverage or change eligibility levels, and many more babies could be at risk. Without Medicaid, pregnant women who rely on the program would likely be uninsured and forgo critical prenatal care. This is a serious concern for the health of both the mother and the baby. Babies born to mothers who do not receive prenatal care are three times as likely to be born at a low birth weight and five times more likely to die. A block grant could also result in States dropping coverage for children who need it the most, such as those receiving special needs care.

In California alone, Medicaid care for seniors and the disabled, including nursing home care, would be slashed by almost $54 billion over 10 years.

This budget hurts women, it hurts children, and it hurts the elderly.

The House Republican budget also eliminates Medicare as we know it. Instead of a guaranteed set of health benefits, seniors would receive roughly $8,000 to purchase insurance on the private market. This sounds good, but the bottom line is that it won't cover the costs. Our current Medicare Program has been more effective than the private insurance market at keeping costs down. This means that for an equivalent package of benefits in 2022, under this budget, health care costs for an average 65-year-old will be 40 percent higher. Because the $8,000 will be insufficient to cover the increased cost of care, annual costs the seniors pay out of their own pocket for health care will more than double in 2022, from an estimated $6,150 to $12,500. Essentially, seniors would be getting less money to purchase more expensive care. In 2010, half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes less than $21,000. You can see the problem.

Furthermore, the House GOP budget would repeal the health reform law. Repealing the health reform law would reopen the drug-coverage Medicare drug-coverage gap or doughnut hole, that is closed in health reform. This gap forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs after they exceeded an initial coverage limit. Over 381,000 California seniors are in this coverage gap. House Republicans want these seniors to have to pay $214 million more for prescriptions next year and $4.3 billion more in 2030.

Furthermore, there would no longer be free annual wellness exams under Medicare, meaning over 106,000 Californians could pay over $11.1 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012.

Repealing the health reform law also hurts women. Women in Medicare would no longer receive free mammograms--an important measure to find breast cancer early.

Because of the new health care reform law, in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on preexisting health conditions and will no longer be able to charge different premiums for women and men. House Republicans want insurance companies to get back in the driver's seat and be able to charge higher rates based on gender and deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. About 80 percent of Americans age 65 and older have at least one chronic health condition, meaning it would be more difficult for them to find insurance coverage. Under this budget, pregnancy would once again be considered a preexisting condition. We all know how difficult it is to get coverage. It is a travesty to deny health insurance to women for this reason.

With these and other benefits in the law, women make great strides toward equality in the insurance market. But House Republicans want to eliminate these strides.

The House Republican budget also targets a critical nutrition program for low-income families. It would cut $127 billion, or 20 percent, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in the next 10 years alone. In my State alone, 3.7 million individuals are expected to receive food stamps in 2012. Under the House Republican budget, California would lose over $10 billion in food stamp benefits over the next 10 years. As a result, families would see their benefits cut. Low- income families, with average salaries of $28,000 a year, would see their benefits cut by $147 a month.

The continued assault on health care for the poor, the elderly, women, and children is astounding to me. We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, and I believe we need to include entitlement programs in the discussion. But changes to these programs and any cuts we make have to be carefully crafted to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive the least amount of harm. The House Republican budget does not follow this philosophy; instead, it attacks the poor and elderly in the guise of deficit reduction.

I will be voting against this budget when it comes before the full Senate for a vote.

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

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

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I wish to point out that as of Friday, there are three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which are going to expire. Those three provisions are something called roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' provision, and the business records authority.

Because of prior discussions, let me point out up-front that this does not include national security letters, just these three provisions: ``roving wiretaps,'' the ``lone wolf,'' and the ``business records'' authorities.

I very much appreciate that the majority leader and the Republican leader have come together in agreement to bring this legislation to the Senate floor. Because of its importance, particularly at this point in time, I hope we will be able to conclude this business and see that those provisions are extended for 4 years before Friday.

Many of us strongly believe when it comes to national security there should be no partisan divide, only strong bipartisan support. So this measure should receive a substantial vote this afternoon, and the Senate will pass it quickly this week before these key authorities expire.

But before talking about the substance of the legislation, let me describe the context in which this debate occurs.

Three weeks ago, on May 1, the United States carried out a risky, complicated but ultimately successful strike against Osama bin Laden, in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The strike was the culmination of nearly a decade-long intelligence operation to locate bin Laden.

Similar to most complex intelligence challenges, finding bin Laden was the product of multiple intelligence sources and collection methods. It was a seamless effort led by the CIA, with important contributions from the National Security Agency--known as the NSA--and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency as well.

The intelligence mechanisms that are employed in counterterrorism operations are carefully and regularly reviewed by the Senate's Intelligence Committee, which I have the honor to chair. Some are also overseen by the Judiciary Committee, on which I also have the pleasure to serve.

These intelligence tools include the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and in particular the three provisions that will, if not reauthorized, expire on May 27. Again, they are the ``roving wiretap,'' the ``lone wolf,'' and the ``business records'' authorities.

The point is, we as a nation rely on certain secret sources and methods to protect our national security. Most other nations do as well.

It is also important to note that the strike against bin Laden, while a critical strategic blow to al-Qaida, is also very likely to lead to reprisal attempts.

There have been calls for attacks against the United States after the bin Laden strike from al-Qaida in Pakistan, from al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and North Africa. There is a very real concern that radicalized Americans here at home may contemplate violence in response to extremists' calls for retribution.

So this is a time of heightened threat--maybe no specific threat, but certainly heightened threats. We are seeing attacks in Pakistan carried but by the Taliban in reprisals for this attack as well. Therefore, this is a time when our vigilance must also be heightened.

Key officials from the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security recently described to the Intelligence Committee in closed session how their respective agencies have heightened their defensive posture over these very concerns.

Clearly, this is a time where every legal counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering mechanism should be made available.

It is also a time to seize the opportunity to further disrupt al- Qaida. The assault on the bin Laden compound netted a cache of valuable information: papers, videos, computer drives, and other materials about al Qaeda's vision and al-Qaida's plans.

The intelligence community established an interagency task force to go through that material as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that previously unknown terror plots will be identified and information leading to the location of terrorists will be found.

Authorities such as the three provisions set to expire this Friday may well prove critical to thwarting new plots and finding terrorists. They must be renewed.

Let me describe the three provisions in more detail.

First, the roving wiretap provision. Roving wiretap authority was first authorized for intelligence purposes in the PATRIOT Act in 2001. But, as you know, it has been used for years in the criminal context. This provision, codified in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, provides the government with the flexibility necessary to conduct electronic surveillance against elusive targets.

Let me explain.

In most cases under FISA, the government can go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court--which I will describe in detail later--and present an application to tap the telephone of a suspected terrorist or spy. The FISA Court reviews the application and can issue an order--basically a warrant--to allow the government to tap a phone belonging to that target.

We all know in this day and age there are disposable or ``throw away'' cell phones that allow foreign intelligence agents and terrorists not only to switch numbers but also to throw away their cell phone and replace it with another.

This roving wiretap authority allows the government to make a specific

showing to the FISA Court that the actions of a terrorist or spy may have the effect of thwarting intelligence. In other words, they make one appearance, and the government can thus seek, and the FISA Court can authorize, a roving wiretap so that the FBI, for example, can follow the target without having to go back to the Court for each cell phone change.

Instead, the FBI in this case would report to the FISA Court, normally within 10 days of following the target to a new cell phone, with information on the fact justifying the belief that the new phone was or is being used by the target.

The Justice Department has advised Congress that the authority to conduct roving electronic surveillance under FISA has proven to be operationally useful in some 20 national security investigations annually. So this provision is both used and very necessary in this day of throw away cell phones.

``Lone wolf'' authority allows the government to request, and the FISA Court to approve, intelligence collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist organization may not yet be known.

Let me explain that more clearly. All other FISA surveillance and searches must be focused on a target who the government can prove is tied to a foreign power. Before the government can tap a phone or search a residence, it needs to demonstrate that the person it is after is an employee or spy or otherwise working for, or on behalf of, another country or terrorist group.

The ``lone wolf'' provision, which was added to FISA in 2004, recognizes that there may be cases where the government suspects an individual inside the United States of plotting a terrorist attack, but it has not been able to link that individual to al-Qaida or al Shabaab or another group.

The ``lone wolf'' authority allows the government to go to the FISA Court, show why it believes a non-U.S. person is engaging in terrorist activity, and get a warrant to begin surveillance. This is not done without a warrant from the court.

It also allows for court-ordered collection against a non-U.S. target who may have broken with a terrorist organization while continuing to prepare for an act of international terrorism.

The Justice Department has advised Congress that although to date it has not used this authority, the ``lone wolf'' authority nevertheless fills an important gap in U.S. collection capabilities, and we have it if we need it.

The recent case of Khalid Aldawsari, a Saudi national arrested in Texas this past February, shows why the ``lone wolf'' authority is necessary. Aldawsari was arrested after the FBI learned he had purchased chemicals and conducted research needed to make improvised explosive devices. He had also researched bomb targets, including dams in California and the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush.

Unlike other recent terrorists such as Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Aldawsari was not identified on the basis of his connections to foreign terrorist organizations or known at the time of his capture to be working with one.

He is better described as one of the most recent cases of individuals already inside the United States who became radicalized and committed to carrying out terrorist attacks.

So it is for this kind of threat that the ``lone wolf'' authority is important and why we should extend this mechanism. It is also this kind of threat that the Intelligence Community is now especially worried about, as people inside the United States may be spurred to action in retaliation for the strike against bin Laden.

If the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or a State or local police officer identifies someone building bombs, it is necessary to move quickly and not take time to research a possible connection to al- Qaida before we use FISA authorities to learn what they are up to and when and how they might strike.

Business records. The third authority covered by this legislation is known as the business records provision and provides the government the same authority in national security investigations to obtain physical records that exist in an ordinary criminal case through a grand jury subpoena.

Business records authority has been used since 2001 in FISA to obtain driver's license records, hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, among other business records. This is the way in which you track a target.

Let me note that while the debate over this provision has often focused on library circulation records, the Justice Department has advised the Congress that this authority has never--let me stress, never--been used to obtain library circulation records.

We had a big debate on this issue when this came up before. In fact, this authority has never been used for library circulation records.

The Department has informed Congress that it submitted 96 applications to the FISA Court for business record orders last year. The Justice Department has further stated that some business records orders have been used to support critically important and highly sensitive intelligence collection activities. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been fully briefed on that collection.

Information about this sensitive collection has also been provided to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and information has been available for months to all Senators for their review.

The details on how the government uses all three of these authorities are classified and discussion of them here would harm our ability to identify and stop terrorist attacks and espionage. But, if any Senators would like further details, I encourage them to contact the Intelligence Committee, or to request a briefing from the Intelligence Community or the Department of Justice.

I have mentioned several times the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Let me describe what it is and how it operates.

The FISA Court is a special court. It is a set of 11 Federal district judges, each of whom is appointed by the Chief Justice to specifically serve in this role.

At least one of these judges is available at all times--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--for the purpose of reviewing government applications to use FISA authorities and, if those applications are sufficient, approving them by issuing an order, or what we call in the criminal law, a warrant.

The FISA Court judges meet in closed session to review classified declarations, and they provide very careful judicial review of the government's applications. They are expert in this specialized area of the law, as is their expert staff. The Department of Justice officials who come before them take all care in making their case and presenting their facts, as they do in public court.

The American people should understand that these FISA authorities we are discussing now--the ability to conduct electronic surveillance and obtain records--are subject to strict oversight. A Senate-confirmed official in the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for National Security--one of these three must, and I stress ``must''--sign off on every application before it goes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Federal judges, also confirmed by the Senate, must approve the applications. Inspectors General conduct regular audits and oversight as well. The Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees receive regular reports from the Department of Justice on the use of all FISA authorities, as well as receiving briefings from the FBI and NSA on the implementation of the FISA statute.

The three authorities reauthorized by this legislation have been debated extensively on this floor and in this Congress since it came up for reauthorization in 2009. Every single national security official to come before the Congress in the past 2 years has testified that these provisions are vital to protect America and has urged their reauthorization.

It is very hard, I think, to vote no in the face of what we have been told in classified intelligence briefings and in hearings by officials from the Attorney General's office and the FBI. In fact,

the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence wrote a letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell today, May 23, expressing their strong support for immediate enactment of the legislation we are now considering.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell.

Mr. President, let me point out there are no recent cases of abuse of these authorities. The oversight system in place is working well, I believe, to ensure they will not be misused in the future.

Other Senators may come to this floor and talk about abuses of these authorities, but I ask: Listen carefully. Chances are they are talking about a section not involved here, and that is the section on national security letters. Again, national security letters are not touched by these three sections we are renewing today. And I would say, yes, they were abused or misused in years past, according to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. But corrections have been made since then. More important, for today's debate, there is nothing we are taking up today that affects or mentions national security letters at all. I have referred to this now four times. I hope I get it across because that is what happened last time. People came to the floor and what they were talking about was not in the legislation we were considering.

Earlier this year, I was pleased to support legislation authored by Senator Leahy that would have made several improvements in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to better protect privacy rights and civil liberties. But the point I made during the debate in the Judiciary Committee, which I will repeat again today, is that many of these changes were in fact codifying practices the Department of Justice and the FBI have already implemented.

For example, minimization. That was one of the issues that was discussed. It has been implemented. The departments are listening and they have taken action where there have been problems.

I wish to say to my colleagues that the Executive Branch has heard and has acted to address concerns about intrusions into Americans' civil liberties. The Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Justice has indicated that it intends to conduct audits and inspections to ensure that the implementation of FISA is in full compliance with the law, and its reports will be carefully reviewed by this Congress and by the concerned Committees. A major priority of the Intelligence Committee in this house is to conduct regular oversight on the use of FISA authorities, and we will continue to do so after passage of this legislation.

Just about every administration official to testify on the use of FISA authorities has also noted the importance of having the stability that comes with a long-term extension. Since December of 2009, when we reauthorized it, the Congress has passed three short-term extensions-- one for 2 months, one for 1 year, and one for 3 months. By lurching from one sunset to another, we run the risk that these intelligence authorities are going to expire. And here we are, once again, because they expire this Friday. I hope Members will think about that. I hope Members who want to produce an amendment will think about the following: if they expire, what if NSA and other agencies have to stop, what if they miss something, what if something happens? That is a responsibility that rests on the heads of everyone in these two bodies--both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.

Even short of that, by providing one short-term extension after another--2 months here, 1 year there--we create significant uncertainty in the Intelligence Community as investigators are not sure whether these tools will continue to be available to them. I can tell you as one who tries to read the intelligence rather assiduously, we are not out of harm's way, and no one should believe that. People are plotting every day as to how they can send someone into the United States or convince someone in the United States to attack this country. The only thing we have to prevent this from happening is intelligence and an FBI that is now able to institute surveillance and tracking on possible targets in this country.

We have come, in my judgment, a long way since 9/11, but we cannot leave this country vulnerable. We must keep our guard up, and we must see that the intelligence mechanisms that are available to this country are able to be utilized.

This legislation now extends the use of these sunsetting authorities for 4 years, to June 1, 2015. In view of the times we are living in, I believe this is appropriate, it is keeping with past practice, and it is vital to the protection of the United States of America.

The PATRIOT Act was enacted in October 2001, and several provisions were up for review and reauthorization 4 years later in December of 2005. After some significant debate, some of the original PATRIOT Act provisions were made permanent and some were reauthorized for another 4 years until the end of 2009.

The lone-wolf authority that expires later this week was first enacted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and placed in the same sunset cycle as the roving wiretap and business records authorities. Under the model established in the PATRIOT Act and a subsequent reauthorization, a 4-year extension from the end of May 2011 to June 2015 is based on sound congressional practice.

These issues have been debated and re-debated and should be very familiar to Members, especially those on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

I hope we are now going to act in the best interests of protecting the people of this country from another terrorist attack by passing this legislation so our intelligence professionals can continue to keep this Nation secure.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent I might be given permission to speak for one-half hour.

Mr. President, I have been on the Judiciary Committee for 18 years. I have never heard a harsher statement about a brilliant young man than I have just heard. During those 18 years, I have seen the standards for appointment change rather dramatically. I have seen a search engine develop on the Republican side to go out and find anything and everything an individual may have written, and then compile a dossier, almost like one would of a criminal, and then characterize and depict the individual in the terms they wish to do.

I regret this, and I hope to lay out how the Democratic side, with a number of nominees, has not done the same thing. But to see a young man with the credentials Goodwin Liu carries belittled in the way he has been belittled in these hearings and also on this floor really upsets me.

This man is a professor of law and the former associate dean of one of the 10 best law schools in America. He is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar. He is a truly brilliant legal mind. I have every confidence in his intellectual firepower, his integrity, and his even-keeled demeanor, and I believe it will make him a fine judge.

Let me tell my colleagues a little about his background. He was born in Augusta, GA. He is the son of Taiwanese immigrants who were recruited to America to provide medical services in rural areas.

He attended public schools in Clewiston, FL, and in Sacramento, CA. He first struggled to learn English and master vocabulary but, ultimately, he graduated co-valedictorian from Rio Americano High School in Sacramento.

He was admitted to Stanford University, my alma mater. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He received numerous awards for his contributions to the university, and he was elected co-president of the student body. Pretty good.

He received a Rhodes scholarship. He graduated with a master's degree from Oxford University. He attended Yale Law School. Once again, he was at the top of his class. He was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition and won awards for the best academic paper by a third-year law student and the best paper in the field of tax law.

He received prestigious judicial clerkships with Circuit Judge David Tatel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and then with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

He worked in the Department of Education as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the United States of the U.S. Department of Education.

He spent 2 years in private practice at O'Melveny & Myers, which is a prestigious law firm--not a minor firm, a major firm--where he handled commercial matters, including antitrust, insurance, and class action cases. Appellate law comprised roughly half his practice.

Finally, in 2003, he accepted a tenure-track position on the faculty of Boalt Hall School of Law. At Boalt, he quickly established himself as one of our most astute legal scholars, with specialties in constitutional law, the Supreme Court, education law, and education policy.

He published articles in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the California Law Review, the Iowa Law Review, the Harvard Law and Policy Review, and many other academic journals.

He received the Education Law Association's Steven S. Goldberg Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Education Law, and he was elected into membership of the American Law Institute.

In 2008, his colleagues on the faculty of Boalt selected him as their associate dean. In 2009, the University of California at Berkeley awarded him their Distinguished Teaching Award, the highest award for teaching across the entire university.

I believe he holds a deep appreciation for what opportunities our country affords. I believe his background and his legal prowess are fitting for him to become an appellate court judge. When one speaks with him about his family and upbringing, one gains a sense of him as someone who loves this country and bears an abiding belief that ours is a land of opportunity and a place where everyone has a chance to learn and grow and to thrive.

Some of my colleagues have questioned a number of his writings and his temperament, and what figures very formidably, as I have talked to the Republican side, is particularly testimony he gave on the confirmation of Justice Alito. What he did was provide a long analysis of Alito's opinions and then at the end he used a rhetorical flourish that was, quite frankly, misguided. He strung together a series of facts from cases Alito had decided and then made a statement that I believe he very much regrets. It was over the top. But he has acknowledged it, he has been forthright, and he has apologized.

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee he said:

What troubles me most is that the passage has an ad hominem

quality that is unfair and hurtful. I regret having written

this passage.

He said if he had to do it again: ``I would have deleted it.''

It was a mistake--no question about it--but a mistake should not color this man's entire record.

I wish to read from two letters we received in the Senate from people who knew and know Goodwin Liu well, not just for a moment but for years. The first was sent to us jointly by three successive presidents of Stanford University. I have never seen a letter on behalf of a nominee from three different presidents of a university of the quality of Stanford.

Donald Kennedy was president when Goodwin Liu was a student at Stanford. He worked with Liu at the Haas Center for Public Service and was present when Liu won not only the Dinkelspiel Award, which is the university's highest award for undergraduate service, but also the James W. Lyons Dean Award for Service and the President's Award for Academic Excellence.

Gerhard Casper is president emeritus of Stanford and currently provost at the University of Chicago. He knows Liu both as a Stanford alum as well as a colleague in the field of constitutional law. He is familiar with Liu, as, in his own words, ``a measured interpreter of the Constitution.''

Finally, John Hennessy is Stanford's current President. He describes Liu as insightful, hardworking, collegial, and of the highest ethical standards.

Together, these three presidents of the university wrote the following:

Goodwin Liu as a student, scholar and trustee, has

epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was to

promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on

behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings

of liberty, regulated by law, and inculcating love and

reverence for the great principles of government as derived

from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness.

It is a fitting and, I believe, an accurate tribute.

We have one of the most brilliant legal scholars of our time. There is a majority here to confirm him. We know that. But, unfortunately, the minority is trying to use cloture to prevent us from ever casting a vote to confirm him.

Let me turn to another letter. This one is from eight top executives of major American companies, including Yahoo, General Atlantic, Morgan Stanley, and Google. They have all worked closely with Liu on the Stanford board of trustees. They wrote to say the following:

Even in a room full of highly accomplished leaders, Goodwin

is impressive. He is insightful, constructive, and a good

listener. Moreover, he possesses a remarkably even

temperament. His demeanor is unfailingly respectful and open-

minded, never dogmatic or inflexible.

Goodwin's strengths, they said:

. . . are exactly what we expect in a judge: objectivity,

independence, respect for differing views, sound judgment.

We know the American Bar Association has unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' for the U.S. court of appeals, and his background is similar to many who have been confirmed to the circuit court in the past. But some on the other side, nevertheless, say he is too young and he doesn't have judicial experience, or his credentials are not right.

For those who ask for a judicial record to review, I would ask, what about Edward Chen? We considered Judge Chen's nomination last week. He was a district court nominee with a 10-year judicial record. He had written more than 350 published opinions, and the minority didn't criticize one. But most in the minority voted against his nomination anyway. So a judicial record doesn't get it done.

Then there is the criticism based on age or other qualifications. But Liu's qualifications surpass those of many we have confirmed under Republican Presidents.

Since 1980, the Senate has confirmed 14 circuit court nominees who were under the age of 40. That means they were all younger than Liu is now. All 14 were nominated and confirmed during Republican administrations.

Let me give two examples. Judge Kimberly Moore sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She was nominated by President Bush at the age of 38. She had 2 years of experience as a law clerk, less than 4 years in private practice, and 6 years as a professor at three different law schools. The Senate confirmed her unanimously.

Judge Harvey Wilkinson is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was nominated by President Reagan at the age of 39. He had 1 year experience as a law clerk, 3 years as a newspaper editor, 1 year of government practice, and 5 years as a professor. He was confirmed.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, also comes to mind. He was 38 when he was nominated. Unlike Liu, he had little track record to review and much of the record that did exist was partisan. He had been a law clerk for 3 years, spent 3 years in private practice, and spent the remainder of his career in the Solicitor General's Office, Ken Starr's Office of Independent Counsel, and the Bush White House. When the ABA conducted its reviews, many troubling reports were received, but I voted for cloture, as did many of my colleagues on this side, and he was confirmed.

Professors are hardly a new game for us when it comes to judicial nominees.

John Rogers is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. At the time President Bush nominated him, he had only 4 years of practice experience, no appellate clerkships, and had spent the remainder of his career as a professor. He was confirmed by the Senate by a voice vote.

Finally, there is Michael McConnell from the State of Utah. President Bush nominated Professor McConnell for the Tenth Circuit. At the time, he had been a constitutional law professor for 16 years and his writings contained scores of controversial thoughts, ideas, and provocations. In reviewing McConnell's record, many of us on the Democratic side found writing after writing that we strongly disagreed with. McConnell had repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. He called the Supreme Court decision ``a grave legal error'' and ``an embarrassment.''

He wrote that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional. He criticized a Supreme Court decision barring racial discrimination at tax-exempt schools and one prohibiting sex discrimination in civic associations. He called the fundamental guarantee of one person, one vote ``wrong in principle.''

But similar to Professor Liu, he made clear in the Senate confirmation process that he understood the difference between the role of a professor and the role of a judge. Here is what he said when asked about all of his writings:

I have a whole bunch of writings out there that were

provocative, and innovative, and taking a different view.

Well, within--my academic colleagues understand that that's

what we do. If you try to make those look as though they are

legal analysis, as if they were what a lawyer thinks the law

is, of course they don't reflect the law. They're not meant

to. They're not a description of the law.

Professor Michael McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 18, 2002.

He then assured us he would apply the law as written, not as put forward in academic theory. Guess what. He

was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote. There was no cloture vote. He was confirmed by voice vote because the Democrats on this side of the aisle believed he would do just what he said. I don't understand why this same situation is not accorded to this brilliant young American.

Today, we have Professor Liu before us. He has also written article after article as a law professor and people have disagreed with some of what he has written.

Here is what he said:

I think that there's a clear difference between what things

people write as scholars and how one would approach the role

of a judge. And those two are very different things. As

scholars, we are paid, in a sense, to question the boundaries

of the law, to raise new theories, to be provocative in ways

that it's simply not the role of a judge to be. The role of

the judge is to faithfully follow the law as it is written

and as it is given by the Supreme Court. And there is no room

for invention or creation of new theories. That's simply not

the role of the judge.

A very similar statement. It was made by Goodwin Liu before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 16, 2010.

Professor McConnell went through by voice vote. The same kind of situation--voice vote--yet we may be prevented from even taking a vote on Professor Liu's nomination because he may not get a supermajority for cloture. I must say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Professor Liu, like Professor McConnell, is a brilliant legal mind. He has written extensively. He has been absolutely clear that if confirmed he would follow not any academic theory or writing, but the law as it is written and handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We took Professor McConnell at his word. Professor Liu deserves the same treatment.

(Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the chair.)

What is interesting to me is how much things have changed on this committee--and we have a new Presiding Officer who also is on the committee--since before the Presiding Officer came on, when we would look at a person's personal record, what they have said, what they think the kind of judge they will be, and make a decision.

So I do not understand, if we can confirm Professor McConnell by unanimous consent, why can't we grant cloture to a man who has distinguished himself as one of the great legal scholars of our country?

Let me address one particular criticism that has been made of Professor Liu's writings, and that is his writings on constitutional interpretation and fidelity to the Constitution.

Some in the Senate have harshly criticized his book ``Keeping Faith with the Constitution'' because he says at one point that the Supreme Court has taken ``social practices, evolving norms, and practical consequences'' into account when interpreting the Constitution. This, some colleagues say, means he will be an activist.

First, Liu has said this book was written as a professor, as an academic, that it is in no way a roadmap for how he would decide cases as a judge. He said, in his own words:

The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the

Supreme Court's instructions on matters of constitutional

interpretation, not any particular theory. And so that is

exactly what I would do, is I would apply the applicable

precedents to the facts of each case.

But I think some are using this nomination to try to set a new standard, to say that the only valid theory of constitutional interpretation is originalism. So I want to point out that Liu's comments about constitutional interpretation are hardly exceptional.

In fact, they echo statements made by some of our very best jurists across the span of American history: Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to name a few.

The most famous example: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, in 1819, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland:

We must never forget that it is a constitution we are

expounding.

. . . This provision is made in a constitution, intended to

endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to

the various crises of human affairs.

Chief Justice John Marshall.

We are not all originalists here, and originalism does not define the legal mainstream. In an interview, published in the California Lawyer in January, Justice Scalia made the shocking statement that he does not believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees women equal protection of the law. This came out this January. This is a sitting Supreme Court Justice saying the Constitution does not guarantee women equal protection under the law.

The text of the 14th amendment says no ``person'' shall be denied equal protection of the law--and after decades of precedent, unanimous Supreme Court decisions agree that women are protected. But regardless of text and precedent, Justice Scalia says it cannot be so because that is not what the drafters of the 14th amendment intended.

This is not the American mainstream. Following this line of reasoning, the minimum wage would be unconstitutional, schools could still be legally segregated, States could prohibit married couples from using birth control, and I, as a woman, could be prohibited from standing here today as an elected Member of the Senate.

That kind of thinking cannot be a criterion for acceptance onto our Federal courts. So some may disagree with Liu's statement about constitutional interpretation, but it is hardly far afield of the legal mainstream today.

Let me tell you what others who are familiar with Liu's full record-- full record--have said about his work.

Richard Painter, a chief ethics officer for President George W. Bush, relayed similar thoughts after reviewing Liu's record. Here is a quote: Liu's ``views are part of the legal mainstream'' and that the ``independence, rigor, and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge.'' ``Liu respects the law, which is what we should expect of a judge.''

Yet the Senate may well not give him cloture even to come to a vote on his confirmation. That is unfair.

Jesse Choper, who reviewed all of Liu's writings as the chair of his tenure committee, has similarly said, ``in addressing a wide range of issues, Liu demonstrates rigor, independence, fair-mindedness, and-- most importantly for present purposes--sincere respect for the proper role of courts in a constitutional democracy.'' ``One thing is clear,'' he says, ``Liu's interpretive approach is part of mainstream legal thought.''

Finally, someone who has been quoted often here today, Kenneth Starr, a prominent conservative and former Reagan appointee to the DC Court of Appeals, has written to us together with Professor Akhil Amar to say, Goodwin Liu is ``a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and integrity, and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals.''

Continuing to quote:

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

the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such

as Goodwin are professional integrity and the ability to

discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law.

Because Goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest

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

appeals not only fairly and competently, but with great

distinction.

I have a very hard time understanding why people would do this: we listened to and read Judge McConnell's views, which were antithetical to many of us on this side, but we believed he would be a fair and good judge, and he was confirmed by voice vote; but today someone who has the finest education America has to offer, who is supported by scholars on both sides of the political aisle, who is truly scholastically exceptional, who could quote case after case after case in his hearings, may be denied cloture.

If he is, this is not the Senate of the United States of which I am most proud. I hope I am wrong. I hope he will be granted cloture because he deserves a vote up or down. A majority vote--that is America--a majority vote on his confirmation. We will see what happens.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, and in strong opposition of the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

I support the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act because it would repeal unnecessary subsidies and incentives to oil companies that will cost taxpayers $21 billion over the next 10 years. That $21 billion must be made up through taxes in other areas, such as individual income taxes.

These tax incentives for big oil, unfortunately, go toward corporate salaries and profits--they do not lead to lower gas prices for American consumers.

And I oppose the poorly named Offshore Production and Safety Act.

Instead of implementing the recommendations of The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, this legislation attempts to irresponsibly increase production by shortcircuiting safety and environmental reviews, rigging the courts in favor of the oil companies, and forcing oil leasing in offshore areas without further review.

The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, introduced by Senator Menendez, was written to end unnecessary and expensive tax subsidies. Is does so in the following ways:

It modifies the foreign tax credit that allows major oil companies to deduct royalty payments dollar-for-dollar from their U.S. tax bill.

It limits the ability of oil companies to claim the domestic manufacturing tax deduction. This deduction was created in 2004 to assist exporting manufacturers, not to subsidize oil companies.

It limits the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs.

It limits the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells: Firms will no longer be able to calculate this deduction using the percentage depletion calculation method, under which they often take claims that exceed the capital that was actually invested.

It limits the deduction for tertiary injectants, which are fluids and gases that oil companies pump underground to drive more oil from an existing well, sometimes with negative environmental repercussions.

Finally, the bill includes a provision I introduced in February to repeal Outer Continental Shelf deep water royalty relief provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

These 2005 provisions created a financial incentive for oil companies to drill in the deepest parts of the ocean, where the environmental and technical risks are greatest.

If we learn anything from the BP oilspill, it is that we should not be encouraging oil drilling in ocean waters so deep that it is beyond our technical capacity to address a spill. Yet that is exactly what the law does today.

Last week, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, CEOs of the big oil companies argued that they deserve to continue receiving these subsidies.

ConocoPhillips's James Mulva went as far as to argue that raising taxes on an industry that can afford to pay those taxes in order to help those who cannot is ``un-American.'' He argued it would lead to a parade of horribles: lost jobs, higher gas prices and less investment.

I could not disagree more strongly. Gas is at $4 a gallon, oil is about $100 a barrel and oil company profits are at near-record levels. Their claims are unfounded and absurd.

Let me start with investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives testified that the companies did not need tax breaks to continue oil exploration efforts. But Congress left them in place. How can a drilling incentive unnecessary at $60 a barrel become essential at $100 per barrel?

Big Oil claims about gas prices are also unfounded. A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline.

A report from the Joint Economic Committee came to the same conclusion, stating:

In reality, most of the so-called incentives have no impact

on near-term production decisions, and thus repealing them

would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the

immediate future. Even in the longer term, the current

proposed changes to these tax provisions would have little

impact on global production and a negligible effect on

consumer energy prices.

The CRS report also addressed another industry claim: that ending tax breaks just for oil companies would be discriminatory.

Most of those tax breaks--such as the deductions for well depletion and intangible drilling costs--are unique to the industry. The only exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage manufacturing companies to build factories here and export their goods.

But as CRS pointed out, there will be no cessation of drilling on American territory as long as the oil and profits exist. Therefore, this is a huge cost to taxpayers with zero effect.

Even the effect on industry profits--the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--would be trivial, according to CRS.

But this is simple arithmetic. The bill before us would repeal approximately $2 billion in subsidies annually, from five firms that made $35 billion in profit in a single quarter earlier this year. This represents a scant 1 to 2 percent of their annual profit!

Bottom line: these subsidies are unnecessary, and returning $21 billion over 10 years to the Treasury would be a good thing.

I encourage all of my colleagues who share my concern about the deficit to vote yes on this bill.

Unfortunately, the minority leader has not chosen to address the deficit in his legislation.

Instead, he has brought forward the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

This bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It attempts to make ``Drill Baby Drill'' a national policy, without respect for the environment or the livelihoods that depend on a healthy ocean.

Its introduction demonstrates that some in this body believe we can drill our way to energy independence, and the only things standing in the way are pesky environmental and safety regulations.

Unfortunately, the facts don't back that up:

The United States has only 3 percent of global oil reserves, but we use more than 20 percent of supply.

Fifty-one new shallow-water permits have been issued since the administration implemented stronger safety standards to ensure that an oilspill similar to Deepwater Horizon will never happen again.

Thirteen deepwater wells have been permitted since February, when the industry finally demonstrated it was capable of containing an undersea spill.

In 2010, the United States produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil, the highest level of domestic production since 2003.

Oil production has increased every year under President Obama.

Despite these facts, we are being asked to consider a bill that would further reduce safety standards. The Republican bill repeals the 2010 drilling plan that protects southern California's coast from new drilling; establishes a 60-day deadline for the Federal Government to review and grant drilling permits. If that deadline cannot be met, a permit would be automatically issued even if the delay is the fault of the applicant. Authorizes leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts and Alaska, including Bristol Bay, without any further review. And overrides the ordinary rules of venue for court cases, engaging in preemptive ``forum-shopping'' by directing all court cases related to Gulf of Mexico energy production to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit--even though that circuit doesn't include Florida, the State with the longest coast on the Gulf of Mexico, nor Alabama.

Finally, the bill sets up all kinds of special rules, appearing to try to ensure that the oil companies cannot lose in the fifth Circuit, by requiring challenges to be filed in 60 days, adding additional burdens of evidentiary proof, and prohibiting the courts from awarding attorneys' fees or other court costs even to the winning parties.

That pretty much ensures that the fishermen, shrimpers, and small businessmen who depend on the gulf for their livelihoods will be unable to defend their rights in court.

It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened.

Three-fourths of Americans recently polled by the Wall Street Journal supported ending oil subsidies.

Americans recognize that this is a question of fairness.

While the oil companies are making huge profits, people are suffering and deficits are growing. We have an obligation to ask whether these tax giveaways are right, whether they are smart and whether we really need them at all.

The answer is no. I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting to end them.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with my colleague and friend Senator Kyl, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011.

This bill would create a total of ten District judgeships in five courts across the country that are facing true emergency situations.

I want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Boxer, McCain, Hutchison, and Franken, for working with Senator Kyl and me on this bill.

As a member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's Federal courts have the resources they need to administer justice for the American people. Our Federal courts bear responsibility for adjudicating criminal cases, deciding civil rights and employment cases, and resolving commercial disputes between companies. When our courts become overburdened, we leave crime victims and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution to their problems.

In the Eastern District of California, the need for additional judges is acute. This District, which extends over 87,000 miles and encompasses California's Central Valley, faces far and away the worst caseload crisis in the Nation.

The District is home to more than eight million Californians, but it has only 6 active District Judges. For three decades, the District's population has been steadily growing, but the size of the Court has been unchanged. Congress has not created a permanent judgeship in the Eastern District since 1978 and the only temporary judgeship created was allowed to expire and never renewed despite repeated attempts by myself and Senator Leahy.

The result is unacceptable. As of December 31, 2010, the District was managing 1,133 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, a caseload that is not only the highest in the Nation, but also 300 weighted filings per judge higher than any other District Court in the country and almost three times the threshold at which the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships.

For everyday life, what this means is that individuals and businesses must wait months, or even years to have their disputes resolved. According to the most recent statistics, criminal felony cases remained pending in this court for a median of 12.7 months; and more than 10 percent of all civil cases were taking more than 3 years from the date of filing to be decided.

The delay is not for lack of effort. As Judge Lawrence O'Neill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, the Eastern District's judges are among the most productive in the Nation, and the court is utilizing every resource currently at its disposal. The caseloads are simply unmanageable.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly remarked on the problems in the District; so has Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy; and the Judicial Conference of the United States has formally called on Congress to create more judgeships here.

The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 would provide a narrow, targeted solution.

The bill would create new judgeships in five Districts across the country where the need is most staggering, four in the Eastern District of California, two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in the District of Minnesota. Additionally, the bill would convert a temporary judgeship in the District of Arizona and one in the Central District of California to permanent status. The bill would be offset by raising civil filing fees $10, from $350 to $360.

Let me be clear. California needs far more judgeships than this bill would create, and I will work with my colleagues to create those badly needed judgeships.

In the meantime, this bill is a narrow, emergency measure to provide relief in the handful of Districts that need it the very most.

I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this commonsense, good government bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with my colleague and friend Senator Kyl, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011.

This bill would create a total of ten District judgeships in five courts across the country that are facing true emergency situations.

I want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Boxer, McCain, Hutchison, and Franken, for working with Senator Kyl and me on this bill.

As a member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's Federal courts have the resources they need to administer justice for the American people. Our Federal courts bear responsibility for adjudicating criminal cases, deciding civil rights and employment cases, and resolving commercial disputes between companies. When our courts become overburdened, we leave crime victims and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution to their problems.

In the Eastern District of California, the need for additional judges is acute. This District, which extends over 87,000 miles and encompasses California's Central Valley, faces far and away the worst caseload crisis in the Nation.

The District is home to more than eight million Californians, but it has only 6 active District Judges. For three decades, the District's population has been steadily growing, but the size of the Court has been unchanged. Congress has not created a permanent judgeship in the Eastern District since 1978 and the only temporary judgeship created was allowed to expire and never renewed despite repeated attempts by myself and Senator Leahy.

The result is unacceptable. As of December 31, 2010, the District was managing 1,133 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, a caseload that is not only the highest in the Nation, but also 300 weighted filings per judge higher than any other District Court in the country and almost three times the threshold at which the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships.

For everyday life, what this means is that individuals and businesses must wait months, or even years to have their disputes resolved. According to the most recent statistics, criminal felony cases remained pending in this court for a median of 12.7 months; and more than 10 percent of all civil cases were taking more than 3 years from the date of filing to be decided.

The delay is not for lack of effort. As Judge Lawrence O'Neill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, the Eastern District's judges are among the most productive in the Nation, and the court is utilizing every resource currently at its disposal. The caseloads are simply unmanageable.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly remarked on the problems in the District; so has Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy; and the Judicial Conference of the United States has formally called on Congress to create more judgeships here.

The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 would provide a narrow, targeted solution.

The bill would create new judgeships in five Districts across the country where the need is most staggering, four in the Eastern District of California, two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in the District of Minnesota. Additionally, the bill would convert a temporary judgeship in the District of Arizona and one in the Central District of California to permanent status. The bill would be offset by raising civil filing fees $10, from $350 to $360.

Let me be clear. California needs far more judgeships than this bill would create, and I will work with my colleagues to create those badly needed judgeships.

In the meantime, this bill is a narrow, emergency measure to provide relief in the handful of Districts that need it the very most.

I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this commonsense, good government bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this particular judgeship. I believe he is accurate in everything he said, and I very much appreciate his stalwart support.

I rise to add my support to the nomination of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen to become a U.S. district judge in the Northern District of California. I recommended Judge Chen to the President, so obviously he has my strong support.

I wish to tell my colleagues a little bit about him. He was born and raised in Oakland, and he is the son of Chinese immigrants. His father immigrated to the United States in the 1920s, and that was followed by his mother in the 1930s. He attended public schools in Oakland and then went on to the University of California at Berkeley, where he received his undergraduate degree with great distinction, and then on to Boalt Hall School of Law, where he graduated in the top 10 percent of his class.

He was a law clerk to District Judge Charles Renfrew on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as well as to Circuit Judge James Browning on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then began his legal career as a litigator, first at the private law firm of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass and later as a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

In 2001, he was appointed to be a U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of California, and he has served in that capacity for the past 10 years.

So today Judge Chen is a solid, tested, and respected judge with over a decade of experience on the Federal bench. In these 10 years as a judge, he has written more than 350 published opinions. I would point out that not one of those opinions has been criticized by anyone in the 20 months this nomination has been awaiting action in the Senate. Nor has there been any criticism of any of his published opinions.

In fact, there is a broad consensus among those who have reviewed his judicial record that he is indeed a very good judge.

He was recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial advisory committee. That committee reviewed his record, and spoke with judges, attorneys, and litigants who knew his work as a judge. The committee unanimously recommended that I forward his name to the President, and I did.

The San Francisco Bar Association has rated him ``exceptionally well qualified.'' The American Bar Association has rated him ``well qualified''--their highest rating. And in 2009, a merit selection review panel, appointed by the U.S. District Court, thoroughly reviewed his record and recommended him for reappointment as a magistrate judge. That panel consisted of seven lawyers appointed by the district court. They solicited public comments on Chen's work as a judge. Only positive information was forthcoming.

They talked to Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Again, the reports were uniformly favorable. Prosecutors called Chen's analytical skills ``exemplary'' and said his rulings were ``balanced and well reasoned.''

Defense attorneys were similarly positive. They described Chen as ``respectful'' and ``considered'' in his judgments.

Partners with large law firms called Chen ``prompt,'' ``well- prepared,'' ``very intelligent'' and ``decisive.''

Overall, the panel recommended unequivocally that Chen be reappointed for a second 8-year term as a magistrate judge. Obviously, he has served 2 years of that second term.

I have the panel's full report here and would be pleased to share it with any Senator who wishes to review it.

Since Chen's nomination for the district court, the reports we have received in the Senate from those who know Chen's work as a judge have been similarly positive.

We have received letters urging Chen's confirmation from Republicans and Democrats, public officials and law enforcement, judges, civil rights groups, business leaders, and private lawyers. Let me share a few with you.

Judge Lowell Jensen, whom I have followed for decades, was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President

Reagan. He also served as second in charge of the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration. He has worked closely with Chen on the Federal bench and had this to say about him, and this is a direct quote:

I have found Judge Chen to be both an excellent jurist and

a person of high character. He brings a conscientious,

careful, and impartial approach to every issue and every

party. The decisions he makes reflect not only good judgment

but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and

the application of the rule of law. I support his

confirmation without reservation.

I can say that Judge Jensen is one of the most distinguished judges in California.

Former U.S. District Judge Fern Smith was also appointed by President Reagan to the Federal court. She writes:

Both in my own dealings with [Judge Chen] and based on his

reputation among my former colleagues, I can attest to his

intellectual competence, his respect for the law, his

judicial temperament, and his integrity. I have no doubt that

Ed Chen would do honor to any of our 94 United States

District Courts.

We have a letter from the president of the San Francisco Police Commission, a lifelong Republican, Thomas Mazzucco. He published an op- ed in the Roll Call urging the Senate to confirm Chen and calling him ``an experienced judge who understands the distinction between personal preference and judicial obligation, and who has always based his rulings--more than 300 decisions over eight years--solely on the law and the merits of a case.''

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association said this:

Chen has earned a reputation as an evenhanded jurist who is

constantly mindful of the role that judges such as himself

fulfill in our society: as keepers of the rule of law and

public trust in our system of justice.

I have over 50 more letters, if anyone wishes to read them. They come from the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; the sheriff, city attorney, former chief of police, and former U.S. Marshal of San Francisco; the last 10 presidents of the bar association of San Francisco; the congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the National Asian Pacific American Bar; and many others.

The judgment is clear: Ed Chen is fair. He is impartial. He is an excellent jurist, and has been for 10 years, and he deserves to be confirmed.

You come back to Washington and what happens? Here is the story. Despite this long judicial track record and broad bipartisan support, this nomination has been sitting in the Senate for more than 600 days.

The President first nominated Chen on August 6, 2009. That was 643 days ago. Since that time, the minority has required the nomination to be sent back to the President three different times. The Senate Judiciary Committee has had to consider the nomination four different times.

This is extraordinary--but then the Republicans have an extraordinary search engine. I will talk about that in a minute.

This is a district court nominee with 10 years of judicial experience, with not a blemish on it. When other judicial nominees have come before the Senate, they have been criticized because they didn't have judicial experience or because there was no judicial track record to review. Well, here is a nominee who has both. Ten years on the bench; bipartisan support and uniformly positive reviews; more than 350 published opinions, and there has not been a single criticism of a single one. But his nomination has been sitting in the Senate for 600 days and sent back to the President 3 separate times.

I find this to be a deeply disappointing testament to the situation we face in the Senate today. Let me pose the question that Police Commissioner Mazzucco--a Republican--asked in his op-ed:

If Judge Chen--an experienced judge whose judicial record

proves he is committed to the rule of law, without bias or

favor, and who is widely respected by the bar that has

practiced before him--isn't qualified for the Federal bench,

then who is?

I echo that.

So what happened here? Well, let me take a few moments to address a couple of the attacks that have been made on Judge Chen.

First, Judge Chen has been criticized because he worked as a staff attorney for the ACLU long before becoming a judge. No one disputes that. Chen was once an advocate, and that is a fact. But he also has a 10-year record to prove that he has made the transition. He was once an advocate. He is now a judge--and a darn good judge.

As a coalition of Northern California Asian American Bar Associations wrote:

Chen has made a successful transition from a zealous

advocate to a balanced and conscientious adjudicator who is

committed to the impartial and active administration of

justice.

Former Federal prosecutors from the Northern District of California made the same point. They wrote:

Judge Chen consistently treats all sides evenly and

impartially, and conducts himself with the utmost propriety,

as is fitting for a judge. . . . While we are aware of his

previous position as a staff attorney at the ACLU of northern

California, Judge Chen does not show favoritism toward the

parties or issues before him.

The record is available. The evidence is in. Chen understands the unique role of the impartial adjudicator. He knows what it means to decide cases evenhandedly. He has been doing it for more than 10 years.

Let me turn then to some speeches that the ``search engine'' turned up. Since 2009, the Washington Times and others have used a handful of quotes from speeches Chen has given to try to paint him as someone he is not. As happens far too often, those quotes have been cut, spliced, and taken out of context. Let me give you an example.

The effort to label Chen as a ``radical'' is based on a speech he gave to students following the funeral of a man by the name of Fred Korematsu. I want to take a moment to explain Korematsu and the case. Some of you may be too young to remember Mr. Korematsu and his fight against Japanese internment during World War II, but I am not.

One of the singular experiences of my lifetime was when my father took me, as a small child, to the Tanforan Racetrack. That racetrack was a few miles south of San Francisco. During World War II, it was taken out of action as a racetrack and turned into an internment camp. It was fenced with barbed wire. Small buildings lined the center portion of the track. This is a photo of it. Here is the racetrack and here are the buildings. This is where Japanese Americans were essentially incarcerated for the remainder of World War II.

Let me show you this. This is the order, which is from the Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration-- instructions to all Americans of Japanese ancestry living in the following area, which is the city and county of San Francisco, lying generally west of the north-south line, and it describes that. It says:

All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be

evacuated from the designated area by twelve o'clock on

Tuesday, April 7, 1942. No Japanese person will be permitted

to enter or leave the above-described area after 8 a.m.

Thursday, April 7--

That is over half of the city of San Francisco.

without obtaining special permission from the provost marshal

at the Civil Control Administration.

Then they are told where they are to report--to the Civil Control Station--to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Thursday, April 2, or between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Friday, April 3.

That is their notice. They turn up, get in a bus, and then this is where they go, and where they remained until the end of the war.

One young Californian, Fred Korematsu, challenged the internment. He took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he argued that the U.S. Constitution did not permit loyal American citizens to be forced into these camps solely because of their Japanese-American heritage, which was the case here. The Supreme Court heard his case, but he lost in a decision that is considered by many to be a black stain on the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court.

Decades later, in 1983, Korematsu challenged his conviction again. This time, he was represented by a team of volunteer lawyers, including Edward Chen. This team put forward newly discovered evidence that demonstrated that prosecutors in Korematsu's original case had withheld evidence, specifically, U.S. Government intelligence at the time indicating the internment was not justified.

This time they won. So four decades after the original internment order,

Fred Korematsu's conviction was overturned by the district court, and, four years later in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, issuing a formal, national apology for the Japanese internment.

So this was the context of the speech in which Chen was speaking to a group of students and reflecting on the funeral of Fred Korematsu. He said in the speech that, at times, he had experienced ``feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism.'' He was referring to the internment of Japanese-American citizens for no cause other than they happened to be of Japanese heritage. I would think you could get a bit cynical about that. People who did not see this do not believe it ever happened. But it did happen, and it happened here. This was the condition in which people were kept. It is not right.

But critics have picked out this line--``feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism''--and tried to use to paint Chen as unpatriotic. But they did not know the context. Sometimes things that have monumental importance at the time, such as the internment of Japanese-American citizens without due process, fade too quickly from our historical memory. I thought I would bring it back so this body could understand the total context.

This was a very big deal. It was not a proud moment for our country. Congress and President Reagan rightfully issued a formal apology for the injustice that was done years later.

To take a quote from a speech after Fred Korematsu's funeral and to use it to try to imply that Edward Chen does not love his country--it is shameful. It is also flatly inconsistent with the rest of the speech. Chen went on to say that when the congregation sang ``America the Beautiful'' at Korematsu's funeral, he was moved to tears because ``the song described the America that Fred envisioned, the America whose promised beauty he sought to fulfill, an America true to its founding principles.''

Fred Korematsu is no longer with us, but his daughter Karen sent me a letter about Edward Chen. Here are some of her words:

My father's belief in our Constitution was unwavering, even

when he was treated unfairly. Like my father, Judge Chen is

adamant about upholding the Constitution, without bias or

prejudice.

In my view, Edward Chen is a judicial nominee who has been treated extraordinarily unfairly. But he remains steadfast in his commitment to serving our country as a Federal judge, and he has a 10-year unblemished judicial track record to show that he will serve us exceedingly well.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to be a district judge for the Northern District of California.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution and offer my congratulations to the men and women responsible for developing the intelligence and carrying out the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden on Sunday, May 1.

This is perhaps the most important, and certainly the most stunning, intelligence operation I have seen in my 10 years on the Intelligence Committee. I wanted to congratulate, first and foremost, President Obama. As he stated in his Sunday night address to the Nation, he directed Leon Panetta shortly after taking office to ``make the killing or capture of bin Ladin the top priority of our war against al-Qaida.''

When the effort to collect and analyze intelligence on this compound in Abbottabad bore fruit, President Obama made a courageous and very gutsy decision to order the strike, even though the intelligence community could not assure him with certainty that bin Ladin was there.

At the operational level, the hunt for bin Laden and the read on his compound has shown the greatly improved collaboration and cooperation across the intelligence community and, of course, the Department of Defense.

The CIA has received and well deserved the lion's share of the credit. The agency collected the human intelligence and carried out other missions that found and characterized the Abbottabad compound, and CIA analysts took the lead in analyzing and reanalyzing that information.

The CIA's Counterterrorism Center has a banner on the wall that reads, ``Today is September 12, 2001.'' It has been nearly 10 years, but their perseverance and dedication has truly paid off.

I also want to recognize the efforts of the National Security Agency which provided signals intelligence and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency which conducted the imagery analysis on the compound. It was truly a team effort.

I also commend and give thanks to the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, the team that flew to the compound under cover of night and conducted the raid. It was not a picture perfect operation, and changes to the plan were necessary as the lead helicopter was forced to land unexpectedly. But the highly trained and skilled members of the Navy SEAL team adjusted, reached their target, and they killed Osama bin Laden without taking any casualties themselves.

I was first briefed on the compound and the possibility that it housed Osama bin Laden in the beginning of last December along with Senator Kit Bond who was vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee at that time. Since then, the current vice chairman, Senator Saxby Chambliss, and I have been regularly briefed and updated on the intelligence.

I thank Director Panetta and his team for keeping the Intelligence Committee leadership informed. As one who is regularly critical of our government's inability to keep secrets, it is very reassuring that this highly sensitive and sensational intelligence was kept under wraps for months.

There is no doubt that Sunday's operation gives rise to a number of questions. Among the most important of them are, one, what did Pakistan know about bin Laden's presence and this compound in the up to 6 years he was there? It has to be pointed out that this compound was eight times bigger than any home in the vicinity. It was just a quarter of a mile away from another home. It was a mile away from a major military academy. It had razor wire on the top of very large walls, and it was very large in itself. Trash was not picked up, it was burned. No one really came in and out except the two couriers who went about delivering

messages from a distance from the compound.

It should have been an issue of curiosity, and neighbors surely would have been interested in who lived there. Why is it so big? What is going on there? But there was virtually no reaction.

The second point is, what does bin Laden's death mean for al-Qaida and for the affiliate groups and lone wolves he has inspired and led? As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I will be looking for answers to those questions and get more of the details of the operation itself. Tomorrow morning, in a joint classified hearing with the Armed Services Committee, we will be looking into these and other issues. But this resolution is about commending the men and women of our intelligence community and the U.S. military for their dedication and years of work that led to 40 minutes of incredible success. It should also recognize the fact that since 9/11, intelligence has been streamlined, stove pipes have been taken down, and analysts have greatly improved in their trade craft.

As a matter of fact, the intelligence having to do with this one facility was red-teamed once, red-teamed twice, and red-teamed at least a third time. The red-teaming process gives the ability of our analysts to debunk the intelligence, to try to indicate what might be a lapse, an ``inconclusion,'' a false judgment. It is a very valuable process.

This resolution also recognizes the measure of justice now delivered to those who mourn and remember the thousands of men, women, and children claimed as victims on 9/11 and in the other attacks carried out by al-Qaida under Osama bin Laden both here and around the world.

This will not end terror as we know it today, but it surely is a monumental step to be able to put an end to the man who championed the cause, the man who provided the inspiration, the man who raised the money, and the man who was purely and simply the major leader.

Osama bin Laden is no more, and the time is upon us. I hope the world will be listening to try to consider a better path, to move away from acts of terror, move away from the killing of innocent men, women and children, and become part of the councils of government, whatever they may be, across the world, to debate, to discuss, to vote, and to put forward principled policies.

I very much appreciate the efforts of the majority leader and the Republican leader in bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge its adoption.

I notice my distinguished vice chairman on the Senate floor. I particularly want to thank him, Senator Chambliss, for all of the cooperation we have been able to effect together.

You truly have been wonderful. It has been a great joy for me to work with you, and I only wish I could give you a glass of California wine to salute this very special day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land into trust for operating gaming facilities.

Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area.

The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a homeland.

But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an unprecedented exemption to the law.

The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was completed before 1988.

Why would something like that matter?

The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos.

The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate the Lytton Band's gaming operation.

The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the region.

The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution to this problem.

It does so by taking two simple steps.

It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing

continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided

the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the

future.

Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding

community by precluding any physical or operational expansion

of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe

consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor

and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law.

The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by current law.

Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly important issue.

A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for law enforcement.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time.

Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced.

The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land into trust for operating gaming facilities.

Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area.

The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a homeland.

But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an unprecedented exemption to the law.

The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was completed before 1988.

Why would something like that matter?

The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos.

The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate the Lytton Band's gaming operation.

The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the region.

The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution to this problem.

It does so by taking two simple steps.

It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing

continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided

the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the

future.

Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding

community by precluding any physical or operational expansion

of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe

consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor

and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law.

The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by current law.

Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly important issue.

A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for law enforcement.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time.

Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced.

The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.

Mr. President, since 1978 we have set aside the month of May to honor Americans who are of Asian and Pacific Islander descent. Today I am pleased to join the celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and the many accomplishments and contributions of such an inspiring, spirited, and industrious group of people.

Efforts to establish an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month first took shape in 1977 when U.S. Representatives Frank Horton and Norman Y. Mineta introduced a resolution calling on the President to declare a weeklong commemoration. Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga followed suit in the Senate. Both resolutions were ultimately passed, and President Carter in 1978 officially designated a weeklong celebration to honor the first Japanese immigrants to the United States and the Chinese laborers who completed the Transcontinental Railroad.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush extended the event to a month- long celebration, and in 1992 the designation of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was signed into law.

More than 17 million Asian Pacific Americans live in the United States today, with more than 5 million living in California. Together, these Americans represent more than 30 countries and ethnic groups and enhance the diversity that is a hallmark of our Nation. Asian Pacific Americans enrich California through their famous and iconic communities including Chinatown in San Francisco, Filipino Town and Little Tokyo in Los Angeles, Little Cambodia in Long Beach, and Little Saigon in Westminster.

Asian Pacific Americans have also left a large imprint on the economy of the United States, although in this time of economic challenge, it is important that we offer as much support as possible to keep those businesses thriving. This is why I support the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, which is focused on increasing Asian Pacific American participation in areas such as commerce, labor and employment, and economic and community development. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that will help create small businesses and improve small business owners' access to capital.

This year's theme, ``Leadership to Meet the Challenge of a Changing World,'' is especially fitting given the many challenges we face today. The leadership of many Asian Pacific Americans who have dedicated their lives to public service is especially notable. These trailblazers have been a strong voice for the community and have empowered Asian Pacific Americans to break barriers and pursue the American dream.

Among these respected Americans are my esteemed colleagues in Congress, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, and nine Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including California Representatives Judy Chu, Doris Matsui, and Mike Honda. In the executive branch, we are lucky to have the services of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki.

In particular, I would like to recognize Representative Chu on her new position as chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I would also like to congratulate Secretary Locke on his recent nomination by President Obama to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. These individuals are all leaders in the Asian Pacific American community, and their service inspires future generations to follow in their footsteps.

In addition to their cultures, entrepreneurial skills and dedication to public service, Asian Pacific Americans have also made great sacrifices to ensure our nation remains strong and secure. There are thousands of Asian Pacific Americans serving overseas in our Armed Forces and here at home in our law enforcement agencies. These admirable citizens risk their lives every day to protect their communities. They deserve our thanks.

I also want to praise the leadership and hard work of the Asian Pacific American legal community. Since the beginning of 2009, we have made significant progress in our work to diversify Federal courts. Six new Asian Pacific American judges have been confirmed to the Federal bench. These include U.S. District Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Dolly Gee in Los Angeles and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose. Two highly qualified nominees still await votes--Professor Goodwin Liu, nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, nominated for the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. I will continue to do what I can to further diversify the judiciary and ensure that qualified Asian Pacific American judges are nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench.

Unfortunately, this month also brings with it the reminder that my good friend and political strategist Mr. Kam Kuwata is no longer with us. Kam was well known and well respected by those in California politics and journalism. He tirelessly pursued civil rights and achieved remarkable success in campaigns and State initiatives. He carried with him many of the difficulties Asian Pacific Americans have faced, as his mother's family was interned during World War II. But he also embodied the many accomplishments that Asian Pacific Americans have achieved. Kam was truly one of the most intelligent and sharp people I have ever met. I would like to extend my heartfelt and deepest condolences to his family and friends. He will be dearly missed by all of us whose lives he touched.

Today, it is my honor to acknowledge the remarkable strength, character, and accomplishments of Asian Pacific Americans during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Ramon C. Cortines, his distinguished career and his dedication to improving our Nation's schools. Cortines is retiring today after 55 years in public education.

I know Ramon, or ``Ray,'' as the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District in Los Angeles, CA--the Nation's second largest school district. I applaud Ray for being a zealous advocate on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District and the State of California. His tireless efforts helped to bring Federal funding and reform to its schools, especially during this difficult time of budget cuts and teacher layoffs.

Ray has committed himself to educating young minds. His career started with humble beginnings as a teacher in elementary, middle and high schools. After his first teaching job in Aptos, Ray became a teacher and administrator in Covina, CA.

His career flourished, taking him to administrative positions of principal, assistant superintendent, administrative director and superintendent. Ray became an administrator for 4 years and superintendent of schools for 11 years in Pasadena, CA; superintendent in San Jose, CA, for 2 years; superintendent in San Francisco for 6 years; and New York City Schools chancellor for 2 years.

Ray also recognizes the importance of higher education. He has acted as a consultant to the University of California, the California State University and the California Community College systems.

Ray's leadership didn't stop at the local level. In December 1992, he chaired a U.S. Department of Education transition team for then- President-elect Clinton. Ray served as a senior adviser to former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley. He was also nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of Education for Intergovernmental Affairs by President Bill Clinton. He served on numerous task forces and committees with the California Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Ray isn't afraid to fight for California schools. He has advocated on behalf of teachers and students in California by testifying on Capitol Hill about the importance of increasing funding for title I and special education programs, as well as saving teachers' jobs.

Ray dedicated himself to serving his country in other ways. He served in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955.

I admire Ray's hard work, dedication and commitment to raising academic achievement and turning around low-performing schools. As Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent, Ray concentrated on improving instruction and teacher quality. Under his leadership, the district experienced a 16-point increase on the 2010 California Academic Performance Index. The district's overall score topped the 700 threshold for the first time. Ray restructured the first school in the district--Fremont High School. Ray's leadership style is no-nonsense and I applaud him for what he has accomplished.

All of us who care about providing every student with a quality education will miss him.

I congratulate Ray on his years of remarkable service to our Nation and to our State's education system. We are grateful to him for his leadership and commitment to making the classroom a better place for our students. I am sure that his students and colleagues will always remember the impact he made on their lives and their communities.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011.

This legislation will make it easier for communities to build infrastructure and grow by allowing to access federal loan guarantees when they conserve land to mitigate the impacts to the environment and endangered species.

This bill creates a ten year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. More than 500 such plans have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, providing protection for nearly 50 million acres of habitat nationwide and allowing development and infrastructure to proceed.

Equally important, HCPs are very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going infrastructure construction and development activity.

In California, the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. At the same time, it is building its infrastructure and transportation needs for the next century.

To date, more than 40,000 acres of property have been conserved. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure.

Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained.

Owing to the economic downturn, however, the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities has slowed to a crawl. Revenue which had been generated to finance acquisition of habitat during periods of robust development has also slowed to a trickle, at just the moment when real estate values are at historic lows.

Ready access to capital during this period would enable Western Riverside to complete its habitat acquisition program for half of what it was estimated to cost in 2008, for a savings of $2 billion.

Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted a very rare occurrence.

The Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling these communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage development and growth and conservation of land and protection of endangered species, at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the Federal local partnership that we need to use to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.