Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the time goes back to this side, that first the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia be recognized and then his distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, be recognized, both to speak for the time remaining to the Senator from Vermont.

I ask unanimous consent that when time is yielded back to me, the time remaining to the Senator from Vermont, which will be approximately 15 minutes, be divided between the two Senators from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor Senator Barbara Mikulski for recently becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. However, in doing so, I am reminded that this milestone does not define her legacy. Rather, her legacy as a coalition builder and a tenacious advocate of the marginalized defines Senator Mikulski's tenure as a public servant for the people of Maryland.

Throughout her career, Senator Mikulski pioneered the role women play in today's Congress. When she joined the Senate in 1987, Senator Mikulski became one of two female Senators and the first Democratic woman ever to join the upper chamber. These achievements were not due to a famous husband or father; Senator Mikulski was elected because of her integrity and her fiery and compassionate character. Her personal and professional experiences over the past 35 years make Senator Mikulski an excellent mentor for first-term female members, leading to the appropriate title: ``Dean of Women.'' I was recently reminded of ``the Dean's'' ability to rally the support of female colleagues as Senator Mikulski and seven of 17 female senators lent their support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the floor of the Senate. Her efforts are emblematic of a unique ability to orchestrate voices in defense of the voiceless.

Just as the Violence Against Women Act provides support to both male and female victims of domestic abuse, Senator Mikulski's legacy as a champion of the exploited transcends the concept of gender. From her roots as a social worker and community organizer, Senator Mikulski has constantly stood for social justice. She was a driving force in the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which furthered protections for women and others faced with discrimination in the workplace. Equal pay for equal work is a principle that Senator Mikulski will continue to defend. From the young lady who delivered groceries to seniors, to a passionate defender of the ethnic American, Senator Mikulski continues to stand in solidarity with those forced to live in the margins.

I have been proud to serve in the Senate with Senator Mikulski for over two decades, and I have enjoyed working with her on many issues, in addition to our time serving together on the Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations for many years. Perhaps most memorable is a CODEL we took to sub-Saharan Africa in 1990.

While my colleagues and I applaud Senator Mikulski on the longevity of her career, we more importantly take this moment to celebrate the leadership and achievements that characterize her 35 years of service. How long she has served bears witness to how well she has represented the people of Maryland.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally but am I correct if we did the full 60 minutes, we would start the first vote at 5:35 p.m.?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we divide the time equally between now and 5:30 and the vote be at 5:30.

Madam President, today the Senate will finally vote on the nominations of Miranda Du to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and Susie Morgan to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Both nominations have the bipartisan support of their home state Senators, and were reported by the Judiciary Committee over 4 months ago. The Senate is still only considering judicial nominations that could and should have been confirmed last year. The judicial vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President George W. Bush.

Last week, I noted an article about the ``crushing caseload'' that the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. In that article, the Chief Judge of Arizona's Federal trial court noted that they are in ``dire circumstances'' and that they are ``under water'' from all the cases on their docket. Like the district court in Arizona, the one in Nevada is also in desperate need of judges, as evidenced by its designation as a judicial emergency. As that same article noted, an insufficiency of judges ``lessens the quality of justice for all parties involved.'' This is why it is so crucial that we confirm these nominees as soon as possible.

Delay is harmful for everyone. An editorial from the Tuscaloosa News last week stated that ``[D]elays are objectionable in themselves: They deprive the courts of needed personnel, slow the administration of justice and deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be considered for the bench.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the article, entitled ``Congress needs to stop judicial partisan games,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The needless 4-month delay in the consideration of these nominations is another example of the delays that have been caused by Senate Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule these nominations for votes last year. As the editorial from the Tuscaloosa News noted: ``[T]he determination of Senate Republicans to delay President Barack Obama's judicial nominees--even those who have won bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the

polarization that also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work together on numerous other fronts.'' The editorial concludes by urging that there be ``no more partisan games.''

A recent memorandum from the Congressional Research Service confirms what we have long known: The delay and obstruction from Senate Republicans have resulted in President Obama's judicial nominees waiting much longer for a floor vote than judicial nominees under the past four Presidents. These tactics, of course, have resulted in a much lower number and percentage of confirmed judicial nominees under President Obama--despite the fact that President Obama's judicial nominees have by and large been consensus nominees.

The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the more than 150 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down votes on the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate. Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

Today, we can finally end the needless delays on these two qualified nominees. Miranda Du was born in Vietnam. She left the country with her family by boat in 1978 and immigrated to the United States after spending a year in refugee camps in Malaysia. If confirmed, she will become the first Asian Pacific American appointed to the Federal bench in Nevada. Both of Nevada's Senators, the Majority Leader and Republican Senator Dean Heller, support Ms. Du's nomination. Senator Heller has said that Ms. Du will ``make an outstanding district court judge.'' She also has the support of the Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval; the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Brian Krolicki; and the Republican Mayor of Reno, Robert Cashell; each of whom has personally worked with Ms. Du. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letters of support from these individuals at the conclusion of my remarks.

Governor Sandoval fully supports Ms. Du's nomination. In his recommendation letter, he wrote that when Ms. Du appeared before him when he was a judge, she ``was always well prepared and represented her clients with integrity and distinction.'' He further stated that she had his ``full support'' for confirmation as a Federal district judge. Ironically, he was the judge in the one case on which Republicans rely to criticize the nominee. As the judge, he had overlooked the jurisdictional argument when initially deciding against dismissing the case. The Magistrate Judge on the case issued sanctions, but Governor Sandoval ultimately struck the motion for sanctions as moot when Ms. Du and her legal team resolved the dispute with the third-party. In addition, Ms. Du testified candidly about the incident during her Committee hearing and in her response to the Questions for the Record, acknowledged that she had ``learned a great deal from this experience.'' Incidents like this have never held up a nomination before in the past, and it should certainly not hold up Ms. Du's nomination. President Obama's nominees should not be held to a different or new standard.

She has spent her 17-year legal career in private practice as a partner at a law firm in Reno, Nevada. She currently serves as chair of the firm's Employment & Labor Law Group. Ms. Du's story is compelling. She was selected by Super Lawyers as a 2009 ``Mountain States Rising Star'' and was named as one of the ``Top 20 Under 40'' Young Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe Area in 2008. That she is being opposed because she and her legal team filed a third-party complaint on behalf of a client in one case is to hold her to a new standard than Senate Republicans have utilized with other nominees and other Presidents in the past.

The other nominee we consider today is Susie Morgan. She has worked in private practice for 30 years. Her nomination has the bipartisan support of Louisiana's Senators, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator David Vitter. Following her law school graduation, Ms. Morgan clerked for Chief Judge Henry A. Politz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She was unanimously rated as qualified by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Her nomination was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last November.

The Senate needs to make real progress, which means going beyond the nominations included in the agreement between Senate leaders to include the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate for a final vote and the eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are working their way through the Committee process. There are another 11 nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional hearings during the next several weeks.

Exhibit 1

[From Tuscaloosanews.com, Mar. 22, 2012]

Editorial: Congress Needs To Stop Judicial Partisan Games

Delays in the confirmation of federal judges aren't

uppermost in Americans' minds when they complain about

partisan dysfunction in Congress. But the determination of

Senate Republicans to delay President Barack Obama's judicial

nominees--even those who have won bipartisan support from the

Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the polarization that

also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work

together on numerous other fronts. And the delays are

objectionable in themselves: They deprive the courts of

needed personnel, slow the administration of justice and

deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be

considered for the bench.

So it's a hopeful sign that Republicans have agreed to vote

on 14 judicial nominations by May 7. It would be heartening

to report that the Republicans agreed to the votes because

they repented of the obstructionism of some of their members,

but in fact their agreement followed a power play by Senate

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D Nev., who filed cloture motions

to try to force votes on 17 nominations.

Rather irrelevantly, Republicans had complained that Reid

hadn't made judicial confirmations a priority. Now he has.

Republicans also have faulted the Obama administration for

being slow to fill vacancies on district and appeals courts.

That is a fair criticism. There are 81 vacancies but only 39

pending nominees (including two for future vacancies). But it

is Republicans who have withheld the unanimous consent

necessary for nominations already approved by the Judiciary

Committee to move forward expeditiously and without prolonged

debate. The latest pretext for delay was the desire to

protest Obama's recess appointments to federal agencies, but

Republicans have been reluctant to allow Democrats to score a

political point by promptly confirming Obama's judicial

nominees.

When Reid first proposed swift action on the nominations,

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R Ky., complained:

``This is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk

the minority and make them look like they are obstructing

things they aren't obstructing.'' But then McConnell added

that ``this is going to, of course, be greeted with

resistance.'' In other words, if you accuse us of being

obstructionist, we'll make you pay by being obstructionist.

This is partisanship at its pettiest.

The White House complains that the Senate has taken four to

five times as long to confirm Obama's nominees as it did to

approve George W. Bush's. Nevertheless, several of Bush's

nominations were delayed or derailed by Senate Democrats,

including eminently qualified appeals court nominees whom

they feared might be potential Republican appointees to the

Supreme Court.

Controversial or not, every judicial nominee deserves

serious consideration by the Senate and an expeditious up-or-

down vote--and no more partisan games.

Madam President, continuing the time that has been allotted to me, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement appear as though in morning business, but I will utilize the time now allotted to me.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally divided.

Mr. President, it is long past time to close the wasteful tax loopholes for Big Oil. Over the past 10 years, the five biggest private sector oil companies--BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips--have amassed combined profits of almost $1 trillion. Last year was no different. Due to skyrocketing prices for oil, these same five corporations raked in a record-breaking $137 billion in profits. Despite this massive windfall, Big Oil continued to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies subsidies that are unnecessary and, in my opinion, unconscionable. The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act will eliminate these harmful subsidies and level the playing field for all Americans.

Big Oil does not need these big tax breaks, and the prices they set for consumers at the pump suggest that they don't appreciate them. As of March 22, the national average price of regular gasoline is over $3.88 per gallon--up almost $0.34 from a year ago. I need look no further than the prices at the pump in Vermont, where the average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.85--up approximately $0.30 from the average price in March 2011. This price increase is especially burdensome in rural states such as Vermont, where people must often rely on cars to get around, and heating fuel is a life-or-death necessity in the winter. For every penny the price of gasoline increases, big oil companies make an additional $200 million per quarter.

In spite of their ever-increasing profits and unneeded subsidies, the five major oil companies have done absolutely nothing to bring down prices for average consumers. Instead, they have padded their own pockets, using the vast majority of their net profits to pay exorbitant dividends, repurchase stock, lobby government officials, and buy radio and newspaper advertising to fight this bill. These actions benefit elite oil company executives and the companies' largest stockholders but do nothing whatsoever to ease the pain of hardworking Americans who trying to commute to their jobs every day or heat their homes during the long winter months.

This bill will halt the transfer of money from hard-working middle class families to oil company fat cats by ending more than $2 billion in annual tax breaks. It is a watershed moment for both energy policy and deficit reduction, and I support it wholeheartedly. Eliminating these wasteful tax breaks that benefit a few undeserving companies will allow us to reinvest in clean energy technologies that will benefit everyone. These investments will improve our national security by making the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. They will also strengthen our economy and create new green jobs for the large number of Americans who are currently out of work and facing hard times.

Specifically, the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act would renew incentives for clean energy technologies and put America on the path to energy independence. In order to break free from

our unhealthy addiction to oil, we must choose the President's all-of- the-above energy strategy which will grow clean energy industries, including alternative fuel vehicles, advanced manufacturing, biofuels, and solar, to name just a few. Savings from repealing these tax subsidies for Big Oil will help continue important incentives for alternatives to oil and usher in a bright new future of energy independence.

In addition to the benefits we will receive from investing in clean energy technology, the remaining savings from this bill will be dedicated to reducing the national deficit, a goal shared by both Democrats and, supposedly, Republicans. Time and again we have heard seemingly impassioned rhetoric from Republicans about the need to balance the budget and rein in spending. And yet, when given the chance to end more than $2 billion per year in unnecessary tax breaks, Republicans have stood with Big Oil. Instead of standing with Big Oil, we need to stand up to Big Oil.

For years, Republicans have opposed efforts to end taxpayer subsidies to the major oil companies. However, lavishing these giant corporations with incentives they do not need merely deepens our deficit and takes money out of the pockets of hard-working families, money which could be spent growing the economy and hastening our recovery. The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act is precisely the action we should take to ensure that oil companies pay their fair share to help lower the deficit, just as working class taxpayers do.

It is important to note that cutting these subsidies will not result in less oil production or an increase in prices. Expert analysis has revealed that it costs the big five oil companies only about $11.00 to produce a single barrel of oil. This amount is dwarfed by the current price of a barrel of oil, which has consistently hovered around $110 per barrel. At today's prices, oil companies regularly earn $100 in pure profit from each barrel of oil that they sell. In fact, the former chief executive officer of Shell Oil Company, John Hofmeister, has admitted that, in his point of view, high oil prices made subsidies unnecessary. Therefore, it is highly improbable that a small change in tax subsidies would reduce their output. Furthermore, because oil is a global commodity, any incremental change in production that might result from changing oil subsidies in the United States will likely have no impact on world oil prices and, therefore, no impact on the price of oil.

The Senate should also go one step further and once again pass the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC), which I have filed as an amendment to today's bill, along with Senator Kohl and others. We must do everything we can to ensure that oil prices are not artificially inflated, driving up gas prices at the pump. Our NOPEC amendment will hold accountable those who engage in collusive behavior that artificially reduces supply and increases the price of fuel by allowing the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels. This illegal manipulation affects us all. As long as OPEC's actions remain sheltered from antitrust enforcement, OPEC's member-governments will continue to have the ability to wreak havoc on the American economy and their destructive power will remain unchecked.

The benefits of the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act should be obvious to all Senators. An overwhelming majority of the Americans, 66 percent, have said that repealing tax subsidies for Big Oil is an acceptable way to help reduce the deficit. I would go further. Not only is this an acceptable way to reduce the deficit, but in these lean times when so many are struggling to make ends meet, it is an essential way to bring the budget back in line. It is time to end Big Oil's free ride at the expense of taxpayers.

Going forward, our focus should be on 21st Century clean energy that powers a jobs boom and fuels our economy. If these tax breaks were ever justified, that day has long passed. The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act will end the unjustified Federal subsidies for the biggest oil companies that are enjoying record profits at the expense of working families. It will propel us into the future by investing the savings in clean energy technologies and reducing the Federal deficit.

Senators must make a choice: stand with the American people and stand up to Big Oil or continue business as usual. I think the choice is clear, and strongly support this bill.

Surface Transportation Act

Mr. President, earlier today, the Supreme Court concluded three days of oral arguments about the affordable care act, the law Congress passed 2 years ago to provide millions of Americans with access to affordable health care while bringing the spiraling costs in this area under control.

I was fortunate to be able to attend yesterday's argument about the constitutionality of the provision requiring individuals to take personal responsibility for paying for their health care, and to watch in person and in real time. Hundreds of thousands of Vermonters and millions of Americans across the country who benefit from the affordable care act did not have that access. The Supreme Court's decision in this landmark case will affect every American. I think every American should have had a chance to see it and the Supreme Court should open its proceedings to television and radio.

Americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of insurance reform. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are starting to receive help when trapped within a coverage gap known as the ``doughnut hole.'' The affordable care act completely closes the coverage gap by 2020, and the new law makes it easier for seniors to afford prescription drugs in the meantime. In 2010, more than 7,000 Vermonters received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. Last year, nearly 6,800 Vermonters with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brandname prescriptions, resulting in an average savings of $714 per person. Since the affordable care act was signed into law, more than 4,000 young adults in Vermont have gained health insurance coverage under these reforms, which allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthdays. The improvements we are seeing in Vermont go on and on: 81,649 Vermonters on Medicare and more than 100,000 Vermonters with private insurance gained access to and received preventative screening coverage with no deductible or copay. These are just a few of the dozens of consumer protections included in the law that are benefiting Vermonters and all Americans every day.

Now that the law is in effect, many of the essential antidiscrimination and consumer protections of the affordable care act are being implemented, allowing consumers to take control of their own health care decisions. Going forward, insurance plans can no longer deny children coverage because of a preexisting health condition; insurance plans are barred from dropping beneficiaries from coverage simply because of an illness; dozens of preventative care services must be covered at no cost and with no copay; and Americans will have access to an easier appeals process for private medical claims that are denied.

I attended Tuesday's argument with Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He and I disagreed about the affordable care act when we debated it extensively in the Senate and passed it 2 years ago. But we both respect the important role the Court plays in our constitutional system. I hope that as the Supreme Court considers its decision in the coming weeks, it respects the important role of Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

For years, we have heard Republican and Democratic Senators rightfully say that judges should not make law from the bench. For the sake of the health and security of our nation, the Supreme Court should not cast aside this landmark law and Congress' time-honored ability to protect the American people.

After watching the arguments and following the debate closely, it is as clear to me now as it was when Congress debated and passed the law more than 2 years ago. The Supreme Court should uphold the affordable care act. Looking at Article I of the Constitution and a long line of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the Nation's earliest days, there is no question Congress acted well within its time-honored ability to protect the American people.

Every Member of Congress takes an oath of office to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' We take this oath seriously. As Justice Scalia said at a Judiciary Committee hearing last year, we take the same oath that the Justices take.

During the course of Congress' extensive consideration of the affordable care act, we considered untold numbers of amendments in committees and before the Senate. That is what Congress is supposed to do. We consider legislation, debate it, vote on it, and act in our best judgment to promote the general welfare. Some Senators agreed and some disagreed, but this was a matter decided by the democratically elected Congress.

Among the arguments expressly considered and rejected by Congress before passing the affordable care act were arguments that the law was not constitutional. We considered and rejected arguments that the part of the law now being challenged in the Court--the individual mandate-- is not constitutional. In fact, those arguments were considered on the Senate floor when Senator Hatch raised and the Senate formally rejected a constitutional point of order claiming that the individual responsibility requirement was unconstitutional. During the Senate debate on the affordable care act, I responded, publicly and on the record, to arguments about the constitutionality of this requirement. No Justice could say Congress did not consider the constitutionality of the affordable care act.

The individual mandate is about personal responsibility. Throwing out this requirement that Americans be responsible for their necessary health care costs will result in tossing aside the provision that bans insurance companies from denying Americans coverage based on pre- existing conditions. The personal responsibility requirement is necessary to ensure that Americans who do have health insurance are not stuck with paying the $43 billion in health care costs incurred by millions of Americans who do not buy health insurance, instead relying on expensive emergency health care when inevitably faced with medical problems. Congress concluded this after extensive study and debate.

I joined with congressional leaders in filing an amicus brief defending the affordable care act in the case now being considered by the Court because I am convinced that Congress acted well within the limits of the Constitution in acting to secure affordable health care for all Americans. I believe we must defend the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution so that our ability to help protect hardworking American workers, families and consumers is not wrongly curtailed by the courts.

Partisan opponents of the affordable care act want judges to override these legislative decisions properly made by Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. They want to challenge the wisdom understood by generations of Supreme Court justices from the great Chief Justice John Marshall in upholding the constitutionality of the national bank nearly 200 years ago to Justice Cardozo in finding Social Security constitutional early in the last century.

The difference between the role of Congress and of the courts is not a partisan one or a controversial one. In his opinion upholding the affordable care act, Jeffrey Sutton, a conservative, President George W. Bush's appointee to the Sixth Circuit, understood the importance of courts not substituting

their policy preferences for those of Congress. He wrote: ``Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples' political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility.''

Professor Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under President Reagan, testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a year ago on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. When Senator Grassley asked him if there needs to be changes to the part of the law requiring that individuals purchase health insurance to make it constitutional, Professor Fried answered: ``I see no need for it because it seems so clearly constitutional.'' I agree with him and I do not think it is a close call.

The provisions of the affordable care act are firmly rooted in what previous Congresses enacted over the last century to protect hard- working Americans. Working Americans have long been required to pay for Social Security and Medicare by the deduction of taxes reflected on their paychecks every month. It is not novel for Congress to pass laws affecting a health care market that makes up one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the key to satisfying the test for constitutionality under the Commerce Clause.

What is telling about the partisan nature of these challenges is that many of those who now claim that the requirement that Americans have health insurance or face a tax penalty is unconstitutional are the very ones who proposed it. Republican Senators such as Orrin Hatch, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and John McCain proposed and supported a health insurance requirement when President Clinton was trying to increase access to health care. They proposed the individual mandate as an alternative when they opposed President Clinton's plan. This requirement was also a part of health care reform in Massachusetts supported by former Governor Mitt Romney and by Scott Brown, now a Republican Senator from Massachusetts.

All of these opponents were for ensuring personal responsibility with an individual mandate until President Obama was for it, and now they are against it. Their views may have changed, but the Constitution has not.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a March 24 column in The Washington Post by Ezra Klein, ``Why Ryancare and Obamacare look so similar,'' questioning Republican opposition to the individual mandate they once championed.

When I hear partisan critics attacking the affordable care act, I wonder what law they are looking at. The affordable care act will protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. The law eliminates discriminatory practices by health insurers, ensuring that a patient's gender is no longer a pre-existing condition, reduces the cost of prescription drugs for our Nation's senior citizens, and helps parents continue to cover their kids on their health insurance until they are 26. The law also provides necessary resources to help law enforcement recover millions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud and abuse in the health care system.

If the Supreme Court overturns the affordable care act now, it will be devastating to kids, families, and senior citizens. I hope the Court does not undo the progress we have made. Doing so depends on legal theories so extreme they would turn back the clock even farther to the hardships of the Great Depression and strike down principles that have helped us build the social safety net over the last century with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The affordable care act builds on some of the cornerstones of American economic security built over the last century. I believed when it passed, and still believe today, that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to enact laws to help protect all Americans, I hope the Court does not overstep the judiciary's role by substituting its own policy preferences and denying a century of progress.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 24, 2012]

Why Ryancare and Obamacare Look so Similar

(By Ezra Klein)

Let's play a game. I'll describe a health-care bill to you.

Then you tell me if I'm describing President Obama's

Affordable Care Act or the budget released this week by Rep.

Paul Ryan (R Wis.).

The bill works like this: The federal government subsidizes

Americans to participate in health insurance markets known as

``exchanges.'' Inside these exchanges, insurers can't

discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Individuals

can choose to go without insurance, but if they do so, they

pay a penalty. To keep premium costs down, the government

ties the size of the subsidy to the second-least-expensive

plan in the market--a process known as ``competitive

bidding,'' which encourages consumers to choose cheaper

plans.

This is, of course, a trick question. That paragraph

describes both the Affordable Care Act and Ryan's proposed

Medicare reforms. The insurance markets in both plans are

essentially identical. And for good reason.

The Affordable Care Act was based on two decades of

Republican thinking about health care. The basic structure

was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in

1989, first written into a bill by Senate Republicans in

1993, and first passed into law by a Republican governor by

the name of Mitt Romney in 2005.

About 2008, Democrats decided they could live with a system

based on private health insurers, federal subsidies and an

individual mandate as long as it produced universal coverage.

A year later, Republicans decided they couldn't live with

such a system, at least not if a Democratic president was

proposing it.

The problem for the Republicans, however, is that they

don't have a better--or even alternative--idea. Since the

passage of the Affordable Care Act, ``repeal and replace''

has been a reliable applause line at tea party rallies and an

oft-uttered incantation on the floor of the House of

Representatives. But while Republicans have united around

``repeal'' of health-care reform, they haven't managed to

come up with a policy for ``replace.''

Instead, they've opted to apply their old policy

framework--the one the Democrats stole--to Medicare. That has

left the two parties in a somewhat odd position: Democrats

support the Republicans' old idea for the under-65 set but

oppose it for the over-65 set. Republicans support the

Democrats' new idea for the over-65 set but oppose it for the

under-65 set.

This isn't quite as incoherent as it seems. Democrats say

they would prefer Medicare-for-All for the under-65 set, but

they'll take whatever steps toward universal health insurance

they can get. Republicans say they would prefer a more free-

market approach for the over-65 set but that a seniors'

version of ``Obamacare'' is nevertheless a step in the right

direction. For both parties, it's the direction of the

policy, rather than the policy itself, that matters.

There's an added complication for Republicans. They have

assumed huge savings from applying the exchange-and-subsidies

model to Medicare. But they don't assume--in fact they

vehemently deny--that those same savings would result from

the identical policy mechanism in the Affordable Care Act.

The Democrats haven't assumed significant savings from the

exchange-and-subsidies model in either case.

If the concept works as well as Ryan says it will, then the

Affordable Care Act will cost far, far less than is currently

projected. There's no compelling reason to believe

competitive bidding will cuts costs for seniors but fail

among younger, healthier consumers who, if anything, are in a

better position to change plans every few years and therefore

pressure insurers to cut costs.

The discrepancy highlights another difference between

Republicans and Democrats right now. Republicans have put all

their eggs in the competitive-bidding basket. If that doesn't

work to control costs--and versions of it have failed in the

past--they're sunk.

Democrats, on the other hand, are promoting a slew of

delivery-system reforms in the Affordable Care Act. They're

hoping competitive bidding works, but they're also trying

comparative-effectiveness review, pay-for-quality,

accountable-care organizations, electronic health records,

penalties for excessive readmissions and medical errors, and

a host of other experiments to determine which treatments and

processes actually work and how to reward the doctors and

hospitals that adopt them.

It's unlikely that the model in the Republican budget will

prove sustainable. That legislation would repeal the

Affordable Care Act, cut Medicaid by a third and adopt

competitive bidding for Medicare. The likely result? The

nation's uninsured population would soar. In the long run,

and quite possibly in the short run, that will increase the

pressure for a universal system. Because Republicans don't

really have an idea for creating one, Democrats will step

into the void.

As a result, Republicans' long-term interests are probably

best served by Democratic success. If the Affordable Care Act

is repealed by the next president or rejected by the Supreme

Court, Democrats will probably retrench, pursuing a strategy

to expand Medicare and Medicaid on the way toward a single-

payer system. That approach has, for

them, two advantages that will loom quite large after the

experience of the Affordable Care Act: It can be passed with

51 votes in the Senate through the budget reconciliation

process, and it's indisputably constitutional.

Conversely, if the Affordable Care Act not only survives

but also succeeds, then Republicans have a good chance of

exporting its private-insurers-and-exchanges model to

Medicare and Medicaid, which would entrench the private

health-insurance system in America.

That's not the strategy Republicans are pursuing. Instead,

they're stuck fighting a war against a plan that they helped

to conceive and, on a philosophical level, still believe in.

No one has been more confounded by this turn of events than

Alice Rivlin, the former White House budget director who

supports the Affordable Care Act and helped Ryan design an

early version of his Medicare premium-support proposal.

``I could never understand why Ryan didn't support the

exchanges in the Affordable Care Act,'' Rivlin says. ``In

fact, I think he does, and he just doesn't want to say so.''

Mr. President, I, again, filed a carefully drafted version of the bipartisan Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act as an amendment to the STOCK Act. Despite near unanimous approval for this amendment just a few short weeks ago, there was an objection by the House Republican leadership to the anti-corruption measure and Senate Republicans objected to going to conference to restore this important anti-corruption provision which had been stripped out of the bill. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is taking up the House version of the bill that stripped out our bipartisan anti-corruption measure without consideration or a vote.

My amendment reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement and would strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption Nationwide. The House stripped this amendment from the STOCK Act after a flurry of misinformation about what the amendment actually does. Senator Cornyn and I took concerns very seriously and addressed them effectively when we drafted the amendment. The amendment I seek to offer includes a further belt-and-suspenders modification to address any legitimate concern. It is carefully and narrowly drawn and will only reach clearly corrupt conduct.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has now reported the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act with bipartisan support in three successive Congresses and it has passed the Senate by voice vote. The House Judiciary Committee reported a companion bill unanimously. It is past time for Congress to act to pass serious anticorruption legislation. That is what the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act amendment would be.

Public corruption erodes the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service. Loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct goes unchecked. The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government and victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. My amendment would help us to take real steps to restore confidence in government by rooting out criminal corruption.

In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that had been appropriately used for decades as a crucial weapon to combat public corruption and self-dealing. The Court's decision leaves open the opportunity for State and Federal public officials to secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public. This amendment, in a precise manner without ambiguity, closes this gaping hole in our anticorruption laws.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct we have seen too often in recent years, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give law enforcement the tools necessary to enforce our anticorruption law. The STOCK Act is much less meaningful without this important, substantive reform. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate apparently will not take the opportunity to support taking these modest steps to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice.

Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the nomination of David Nuffer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Federal trial court for Utah. This is not a nomination that should have been filibustered or required the filing of a cloture motion in order to be scheduled for consideration by the Senate. This is a nomination, reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 5 months ago, that we should have voted on and confirmed last year.

Today's consideration was facilitated when the majority leader and the republican leader came to an understanding last week. With a judicial vacancies crisis that has lasted years, and nearly one in 10 judgeships across the Nation vacant, the Senate needs to work to reduce judicial vacancies significantly before the end of the year.

Unlike the nearly 60 district court nominees of President Bush who were confirmed within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, qualified, consensus nominees to fill vacancies on our Federal courts have been needlessly stalled during President Obama's first term. The five-month delay in the consideration of Judge Nuffer is another example of the needless delays that were occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule the nomination for a vote. The application of the ``new standard'' the junior Senator from Utah conceded Republicans are applying to President Obama's nominees continues to hurt the America people all over the country who are being forced to wait for judges to fill these important Federal trial court vacancies and hear their cases. Justice is being delayed for millions of Americans.

This nomination is one of the 20 circuit and district court nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus nominations, as is Judge Nuffer. There was never any good reason for the Senate not to proceed to votes on these nominations. It should not have taken cloture motions to get agreement to schedule votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominations.

Judge Nuffer has been serving over the last 17 years as a magistrate judge for the very court to which he was nominated by the President. By any sensible standard he should be confirmed. No ``new standard'' should be used to oppose his confirmation. Like Judge Nuffer, the other nominees awaiting votes by the Senate are qualified judicial nominees. They are nominees whose judicial philosophy is well within the mainstream. These are all nominees supported by their home State Senators, both Republican and Democratic. The consequence of these months of delays is borne by the millions of Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans allow votes on the judicial nominations currently before the Senate awaiting their final consideration.

We must continue with the pattern set by last week's agreement. The Senate needs to make progress beyond the 14 nominations in that agreement and beyond the 20 nominations currently on the calendar. There are another eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are working their way through the committee process. There was another needless delay when Republicans boycotted the Judiciary Committee meeting last week and prevented a quorum while insisting on a meeting to hold over nominees. We will overcome that and have those nominations before the Senate this spring.

I hope the committee will hold hearings on another 11 nominations in the next few weeks. One of those nominees, Robert Shelby, is to fill the other vacancy on the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Whether he is included depends in large measure on the Senators from Utah.

I have assiduously protected the rights of the minority in this process. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home State Senators. That has meant that we are not able to proceed on current nominees from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Florida, Oklahoma and Utah. I even stopped proceedings on a circuit court nominee from Kansas when the Kansas Senators reversed themselves and withdrew their support for the nominee.

I have been discussing with the junior Senator from Utah whether he will

support the nomination of Robert Shelby. I have yet to receive assurance that he will. His vote today on the Nuffer nomination may provide a clue.

When the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of David Nuffer, both Republican home State Senators, Senator Hatch and Senator Lee, strongly supported the President's nomination. This is another nomination on which President Obama reached out and consulted with Republican home State Senators. The Senators from Utah supported this nomination when the President made it last year and when after hearing and study it was voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They both serve on the Committee. Had either of them opposed this nomination, I would not have proceeded with it. They supported it. I hope this will not be another occasion on which either switches his vote from yes to no. That is another new practice and new standard that Senate Republicans have seemed to adopt.

By working steadily and by proceeding with the regular consideration of judicial nominations, I hope the Senate ensures that the Federal courts have the judges they need to provide justice for all Americans without needless delay. In the two most recent presidential election years, 2004 and 2008, we worked together to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest levels in decades. In 1992, with a Republican President and a Democratic Senate majority, we confirmed 66 judicial nominees.

Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

I went back and checked my recollection of how we considered consensus Federal trial court nominees in President Bush's first term. Nearly 60 were confirmed within a week of being voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. By contrast there have only been two judicial nominees voted on so promptly since President Obama took office. I said at the time we were able to vote on the Alabama nominee supported by Senator Sessions, who was at that time the Committee's Ranking Republican member, and on Judge Reiss of Vermont, that I hoped they would become the model for regular order. Instead, they stand out as isolated exceptions to the months of delay Senate Republicans have insisted on before considering consensus Federal trial court nominees of this President. Today, the Senate will vote on the nominations of Ronnie Abrams and Rudolph Contreras to fill judicial vacancies in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia. These are both nominations that were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 4 months ago. They are among the many nominations that could and should have been voted on and confirmed last year.

Today's votes are pursuant to the agreement reached by the majority leader and the Republican leader last week. Although I commend the step forward, the Senate must continue to vote on judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee beyond the dozen encompassed by that agreement, if we are to make significant progress in reducing the vacancies across the Nation that number nearly one in 10.

Just yesterday, I read an article about the crushing caseload that the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. I will ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the article, entitled ``Federal courts in Arizona face crushing caseload,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. In the article, the chief judge of Arizona's Federal trial court noted that they are in ``dire circumstances'' and that they are ``under water'' from all the cases on their docket. The report notes that the Federal court not having its full complement of judges ``lessens the quality of justice for all parties involved.'' They are relying on visiting judges from other courts around the country to assist with their court proceedings. In too many places around the country, our Federal courts have to rely on senior judges. Their dedication is commendable but they should not be carrying such heavy workloads.

The needless 4-month delays in the consideration of Ronnie Abrams and Rudolph Contreras are just more examples of the delays that have been occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule the nominations for a vote. The Senate must return to the practice of moving forward on consensus nominees and of ``build[ing] bridges instead of burn[ing] them,'' as Senator Coburn urged.

The nominations today are two of the 20 circuit and district court nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus nominations, as are Ms. Abrams and Mr. Contreras. There was never any good reason for the Senate not to proceed to votes on these nominations. It should not have taken cloture petitions to secure agreement to schedule votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominations.

Ronnie Abrams is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge on the Southern District of New York. She is an experienced attorney who spent 10 years as a Federal prosecutor in the district to which she has been nominated. She served as Chief of the General Crimes Unit and Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. Since 2008, Ms. Abrams has worked as Special Counsel for Pro Bono at the New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, where she began her legal career after clerking for Chief Judge Thomas Griesa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Rudolph Contreras is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge in the District of Columbia. Born to Cuban immigrants, Mr. Contreras has devoted his career to public service for the last 17 years. He worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia and in Delaware. He has risen to be the chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where he currently serves. The delay in considering his nomination recalls the 4-month filibuster against the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida. On that nomination, Senate Republicans delayed the vote for another 2 days after cloture was invoked and the filibuster brought to an end. Judge Jordan was then finally confirmed as the first Cuban-American to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the nearly 160 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down votes on the 20 judicial nominations currently before the Senate awaiting a confirmation vote.

The Senate must continue the actions allowed by last week's agreement. The Senate needs to make progress beyond the nominations included in that agreement, and beyond the 20 nominations currently on the calendar. There are another eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are working their way through the Committee process. Several of those were needlessly delayed last week when Republicans boycotted the Judiciary Committee meeting and prevented a quorum after insisting on a meeting only to hold over nominees. There are another 11 nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional hearings during the next several weeks. By working steadily and by continuing the regular consideration of judicial nominations represented by last week's understanding between the leaders, the Senate can do its part to ensure that the Federal courts have the judges they need to provide justice for all Americans without needless delay.

Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge

hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

Today's votes are steps in the right direction.

I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced be printed in the Record.

I would note, on this side, at least--I know we have to have a rollcall on this first nominee. I will have no objection if there are voice votes on the next two. That would be up to others. But on the first one I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 2 years ago this week, President Obama signed into law the affordable care act. This landmark act will extend health insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans in the next few years. Reform based on good-quality and affordable health insurance, talked about for decades, is finally becoming a reality. Over 15 months, Congress debated and then passed the most sweeping and comprehensive reforms to improve the everyday lives of every American since Congress passed Medicare in 1965. It was an arduous process, but in the end this achievement proved that change is possible and that the voices of so many Americans who over the years have called on their leaders to act have finally been heard.

Americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of insurance reform. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are starting to receive help when trapped within a coverage gap known as the ``doughnut hole.'' The affordable care act completely closes the coverage gap by 2020, and the new law makes it easier for seniors to afford prescription drugs in the meantime. In 2010, more than 7000 Vermonters received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. Last year, nearly 6800 Vermonters with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescriptions, resulting in an average savings of $714 per person. Since the affordable care act was signed into law, more than 4000 young adults in Vermont have gained health insurance coverage under these reforms, which allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthdays. The improvements we are seeing in Vermont go on and on: 81,649 Vermonters on Medicare and more than 100,000 Vermonters with private insurance gained access to and received preventative screening coverage with no deductible or copay. These are just a few of the dozens of consumer protections included in the law that are benefiting Vermonters and all Americans every day.

Now that the law is in effect, many of the essential antidiscrimination and consumer protections of the affordable care act are being implemented, allowing consumers to take control of their own health care decisions. Known as the Patients' Bill of Rights, these rules protect consumers against the worst health insurance industry abuses that have prevented millions of people from receiving the health care they need. Going forward, insurance plans can no longer deny children coverage because of a preexisting health condition; insurance plans are barred from dropping beneficiaries from coverage simply because of an illness; dozens of preventive care services must be covered at no cost and with no copay; and Americans will have access to an easier appeals process for private medical claims that are denied.

Yet another major reform now protects hard-working Americans from one of the most egregious insurance industry practices: setting lifetime or annual limits on health insurance coverage. Before this change in the law, wherever I traveled in Vermont, I was often stopped in the grocery store, at church, on the street, or at the gas station by Vermonters who shared their personal, wrenching stories about how they could no longer get medical treatment because they had met their annual or lifetime maximum. Many of these Vermonters were perfectly healthy before being diagnosed with cancer or diseases that can cost well beyond their means for treatment. Instead of being able to focus on getting healthy, patients instead had to worry about whether their next doctor's visit will push them above the insurance company's arbitrary limit.

Beginning in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting health conditions or to charge higher premiums based on health status or gender. We learned in a report issued by the National Women's Law Center this week that until these reforms are implemented, insurance companies are continuing to charge women higher premiums than men. In States where this practice is not prohibited, women can pay substantially more than men solely because of their gender. Those who wish to turn back the clock and repeal the affordable care act threaten to return the American people to a broken health insurance system where women can be charged more than men, children can be denied insurance coverage because they were born with a health condition, and individuals risk losing their health insurance solely for getting sick.

In addition to these improvements to our health insurance system, over time the affordable care act will insure 93 percent of our population and make a substantial investment in our economic vitality in the years ahead. I was proud to work with Senator Grassley and others to include strong antifraud provisions in the law that have already helped prevent and detect fraudulent activities that in the past have cost American taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Despite the specious arguments from opponents of reform, this bill is the largest deficit reduction measure upon which many in Congress will ever cast a vote. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that comprehensive reform will reduce the Federal deficit by $143 billion through 2019, and by more than $1 trillion in the decades to come.

Regrettably, opponents of the affordable care act have sought to continue their political battle by challenging the landmark legislation in the courts, right from the moment President Obama signed it into law. These opponents seek to achieve in the courts what they could not in Congress. They want judges to override legislative decisions properly assigned by the Constitution to Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

In my view, the partisan legal challenges to the affordable care act depend on legal theories so extreme they would not only undo the progress we have made in the affordable care act for kids, families, and senior citizens, they would turn back the clock even farther to the hardships of the Great Depression. They seek to strike down principles that have been settled for nearly three quarters of a century and have helped us build and secure the social safety net through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These challenges to Congress's constitutional authority to enact the affordable care act have been rejected by three courts. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents have rejected these challenges, and they were right to do so. Now the case is before the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments next week.

I have joined congressional leaders in filing an amicus brief defending the affordable care act. I did so not only because I have fought for decades to secure affordable health care for all Americans but because I am convinced that Congress acted well within the limits of Article I of the Constitution in doing so. Before passing the affordable care act, Congress expressly considered and rejected arguments that the law, including the requirement that individuals have health insurance, is not constitutional. I believe we must defend the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution so that our ability to help protect hard-working American workers, families, and consumers is not wrongly curtailed by the courts.

What is telling about the partisan nature of these challenges is that many of those who now claim that the requirement that Americans have health insurance or face a tax penalty is unconstitutional are the very ones who proposed it. Republican Senators like Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, proposed a health insurance requirement as an alternative when they opposed President Clinton's plan to provide access for all Americans to health care. They were for the individual mandate until President Obama was for it, and now they are against it. Their views may have changed, but the Constitution has not. What they fail to mention are the consequences of removing this provision. If individuals are not required to have health insurance, then they will wait

until they are sick to get coverage, driving up the costs for everyone else in the meantime. This will mean that many of the consumer protections in the law, such as the ban on preexisting health conditions, would disappear, once again leaving millions uninsured. For sake of the health and security of our Nation, the Supreme Court should not cast aside this landmark law and Congress's time-honored ability to act on behalf of the American people.

The affordable care act is a tremendous achievement that will improve the lives of Americans for generations to come. For decades, we have heard heartbreaking stories about the enormous challenges Americans face because they are uninsured or underinsured. With each year that we move forward to implement the features of the affordable care act, these stories are becoming fewer and fewer and are being replaced by stories of the success of these reforms, one family at a time, all across Vermont and all across America.

There is still much more to accomplish, and there are still millions of Americans who are struggling to buy or keep adequate health insurance coverage for their families or themselves. As these reforms are implemented over the next few years, I will continue to work with Vermonters and the Department of Health and Human Services to help Americans have the access to the quality, affordable health insurance that each and every American needs and deserves.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note in morning business that the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization now has 61 cosponsors. I thank Senator Crapo for his leadership and commend the Senators from both parties who came to the floor last week to speak about the importance of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

I want to thank Senators Mikulski, Murray, Murkowski, Klobuchar, Hagan, Shaheen, Feinstein and Boxer for coming to the Senate floor last week to express bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and to emphasize the importance of reauthorizing this landmark legislation. I hope that their statements will point the way for the Senate to act soon to pass this important legislation.

Senator Klobuchar spoke about her time as a prosecutor in Hennepin County, MN, and her efforts to put the focus on children's needs in domestic violence cases. She spoke about the dangers faced by law enforcement and the loss of a young officer who was killed while responding to a domestic violence call and who left behind a wife and three young children.

We heard from the respected senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, who spoke of the message we need to send so that victims can have confidence and muster the courage to leave an abusive situation. She spoke about the important commitment we make against sexual assault and domestic violence in this legislation and our expanded efforts in rural communities such as the villages of rural Alaska.

The Senate heard last Thursday, as well, from Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Hagan, Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, the author of a House bill in 1990 that was an important part of this effort. Eight Senators came to the floor to remind us all why this measure is important and that the Senate should proceed to pass it.

For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act--VAWA--has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided life saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women, men, and children, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the law was first passed.

Support for the Violence Against Women Act has always been bipartisan, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that this reauthorization bill has already received. Senator Crapo and I introduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in November. With Senators Heller and Ayotte joining the bill this week, it is now cosponsored by 61 senators from both sides of the aisle, reaching a critical level of bipartisan support.

The Violence Against Women Act is not about partisan politics. It is about saving women's lives and responding to the scourge of domestic and sexual violence. We should consider the bill and pass it because it is vitally important legislation. The legislation now before the Senate is informed by the experiences and needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the country, and by the recommendations of the tireless professionals who serve them every day. It builds on the progress that has been made in reducing domestic and sexual violence and makes vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs, as we have each time we have authorized and reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act.

Our legislation includes key improvements that are needed to better serve the victims of violence. Because incidence of sexual assault remains high, while reporting rates, prosecution rates, and conviction rates remain appallingly low, this reauthorization increases VAWA's focus on effective responses to sexual assault. It also encourages the use of new, evidence-based methods that can be very effective in preventing domestic violence homicide. The provisions of the bill are described and explained in the committee report, which was also filed last week.

The provisions that a minority on the Judiciary Committee labeled controversial are, in fact, modest changes to meet the genuine, unmet needs that service providers, who help victims every day, have told us they desperately need. As every prior VAWA authorization has done, this bill takes steps to recognize those victims whose needs are not being served and find ways to help them. This is not new or different. It should not be a basis for partisan division. The provisions are not extreme, and they are not political.

This reauthorization seeks to ensure that services provided under the Violence Against Women Act are available for all victims, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Research has proven that domestic and sexual violence affects all communities, but victims of different sexual orientations or gender identities have had a more difficult time obtaining basic services. There is nothing radical or new about saying that all victims are entitled to services. This is what the Violence Against Women Act has always done. It reaches out to help all victims. As Senator Feinstein said last week: ``[T]hese are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence.''

Domestic and sexual violence against Native women continues to be a problem of epidemic proportions. Just as we made strides when we enacted the Tribal Law and Order Act two years ago, we can take responsible steps to more effectively protect Native women. Working with the Indian Affairs Committee, we have included a provision to fill a loophole in jurisdiction in order to allow tribal courts jurisdiction over perpetrators who have significant ties to the tribe in a very limited set of domestic violence cases involving an Indian victim on Indian land. This provision would allow prosecution of cases that currently are simply not addressed, and it would do so in a way that guarantees defendants comprehensive rights.

The bill would allow a modest increase in the number of available U visas. Law enforcement is authorized to request visas for immigrant victims who are helping their investigations. These visas are key law enforcement tools that allow perpetrators of serious crimes to be brought to justice. They were created in VAWA previously with bipartisan support. The Department of Homeland Security and the Fraternal Order of Police strongly support this provision because it serves law enforcement purposes.

We all know that while the economy is now improving, these remain difficult economic times, and taxpayer money must be spent responsibly. That is why in our bill, we consolidate 13 programs into four in an effort to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. The bill would cut the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of nearly 20

percent from the last reauthorization. The legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs.

Our bipartisan bill is the product of careful consideration and has widespread support. I have reached out to those who have opposed these provisions to work out a time agreement to govern amendments. The Judiciary Committee passed this bill after considering the amendments offered by the minority. That is what the Senate should do. Then we should move forward and pass this important measure with strong bipartisan support. These problems are too serious for us to delay. We should reauthorize this law now.

This is crucial, commonsense legislation that has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations. Numerous religious and faith-based organizations as well as our law enforcement partners have endorsed this VAWA reauthorization bill. The Violence Against Women Act should not be a partisan matter. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Although it seems that partisan gridlock is too often the default in the Senate over the last couple of years, it remains my hope working with our Republican cosponsors and if those who have voted for VAWA in the past come forward to support it, we can pass our VAWA reauthorization with a strong bipartisan majority.

Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat; rich and poor, young and old, male and female. Let us work together and pass strong VAWA reauthorization legislation without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.

Mr. President, last week, a jury in New Jersey convicted Dharun Ravi for violations of New Jersey criminal laws against bias intimidation and invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi had used a Webcam to spy on and then publicize an intimate encounter between his college roommate, Tyler Clementi, and another man. Tragically, Mr. Clementi became so distraught that he took his own life.

Young men and women should not be bullied or shamed because of their sexual orientation. It is incumbent on every segment of society to do what we can to stop bullying in schools and in our communities. As Tyler Clementi's father said after the jury verdict was announced:

To our college, high school and even middle school

youngsters, I would say this: You're going to meet a lot of

people in your lifetime. Some of these people you may not

like. But just because you don't like them does not mean you

have to work against them.

I can only imagine the Clementi family's grief and suffering over their loss. I applaud the efforts they are making to raise awareness about the real dangers of bullying on American campuses.

The Senate is also taking steps to address the growing problem of bullying. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Casey's Safe Schools Improvement Act, which requires schools to establish bullying prohibition policies and would help educators identify and address any conduct based on a student's actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Another bill that I support is the Student Non-Discrimination Act introduced by Senator Franken, which would define harassment as a form of discrimination in our public schools. Both bills have more than 35 cosponsors and deserve full consideration by the Senate. It has been well documented that students who are paralyzed by fear of bullying cannot effectively learn. Congress should help ensure that States and schools have the tools they need to prevent or punish bullying in any form. We must do more to ensure that all students are protected and can thrive in their schools.

In the aftermath of Dharun Ravi's conviction in New Jersey, there has been some commentary on hate crimes laws generally. Some have wondered whether hate crimes laws criminalize thoughts or beliefs and have the effect of chilling free speech. Others have expressed confusion whether Mr. Ravi could have been prosecuted under our recently passed Federal hate crimes law.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, let me clarify the scope of Federal hate crimes statutes. First, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act protects the constitutional right of every individual to have her own thoughts and beliefs and express them in a lawful manner. The law does not prohibit or punish speech, expression, or association in any way--even hate speech. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it.

The Matthew Shepard Act punishes physical violence, not speech. The law requires the defendant to have caused or attempted to cause bodily injury to the victim while being motivated by the victim's sexual orientation or another defined characteristic. Importantly, the defendant in a Federal hate crimes case must have acted willfully. In other words, the defendant must have voluntarily and intentionally caused bodily injury to the victim. From what we know of the Ravi case, the defendant could not have been prosecuted under the Matthew Shepard Act because Mr. Ravi did not willfully cause bodily injury to Tyler Clementi, nor did he willfully cause the victim to take his own life.

We know that the consequences of bias-motivated violence extend beyond the victim. Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Preventing such consequences is the reason I offered the Matthew Shepard Act as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill more than 2 years ago. The law has already resulted in several Federal criminal convictions. For example, two Arkansas men were convicted after they targeted five Hispanic victims at a gas station and rammed their car off the road causing serious injuries. Two other men in New Mexico were convicted under this statute for branding a disabled Navajo man with a swastika while writing the words ``KKK'' and ``white power'' on his body.

The Ravi prosecution was brought under New Jersey's laws, which are different from our Federal hate crimes laws.

Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse, Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United.

Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from

direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.

Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.

When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain- Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act, preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in our elections.

By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is clear those concerns were justified.

By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''

Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse, Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United.

Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from

direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.

Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.

When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain- Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act, preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in our elections.

By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is clear those concerns were justified.

By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''

Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and fair elections.

I am moved today to talk about Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda of Dummerston, VT. This loving couple is legally married under the laws of Vermont. Yet, like many Americans, they are being hurt by the Defense of Marriage Act despite the protections provided them under the laws of the State in which they live. Ms. Ueda is a Japanese citizen. Recently, her petition to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States, as the lawful spouse of a United States citizen, was denied for the sole reason that she and her lawful spouse happen to be of the same gender. This case underscores not only the harm that current Federal law causes to same sex couples, but the additional hardship placed upon same sex binational couples whose marriages are not recognized as the foundation of a spousal-based green card petition.

Last summer, I chaired a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act. We heard from many different witnesses about how this Federal law has singled them and their families out and made them less secure than other families protected under State law. That historic hearing reflected steady progress toward a better understanding of the way in which that law hurts Americans and their loved ones. I have experienced profound change in my own views. I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. And today I will not hesitate to acknowledge that my views have changed for the better. My own transformation came in part from the State of Vermont's drive towards greater equality for Vermonters. The Vermont Supreme Court's opinion in the landmark case of Baker v. State first gave rise to legislatively-enacted civil unions in Vermont. In Baker v. State, then-Chief Justice Jeffery Amestoy wrote that the court's decision was grounded in Vermont's constitution and was ``a recognition of our common humanity.'' A few years later, the Vermont legislature voted to provide full marriage equality. And other States have now followed this march toward equality for all committed couples.

Our common humanity is what my friend Congressman John Lewis was describing when he spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1996, and what he has continued to fight for and protect for so many years. Congressman Lewis saw this law for what it was with a clarity and conviction that I greatly admire. Congressman Lewis wrote in 2003 that we must have ``not just civil rights for some but civil rights for all.'' He was speaking of the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. I could not agree more.

Our common humanity is what binds us together. It is what moves neighbors to help neighbors without regard to politics or ideology, and without judgment. It is what inspired the extraordinary generosity and giving spirit of Vermonters who helped each other following the devastation of Hurricane Irene, and which I and my family witnessed all over Vermont. I can think of few things more worthy of protection and respect than the universal bond that human beings form with each other.

Despite Vermont's exercise of its sovereignty and the legislature's expression of the will of the people of Vermont, the Defense of Marriage Act stands as an obstacle to the full realization of the promise Vermont made to its citizens--just as it does to the

citizens of every other State that has taken these steps toward justice and fairness.

Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda are two Vermonters who know first hand the harm caused by this discriminatory Federal policy. For them, the issue is not ideological or political, it is deeply personal. They are legally married in the State of Vermont and have been formally committed to one another for more than a decade. Despite the fact that Vermont considers them to be a married couple, the Federal government does not. After many years of lawful presence in the United States, Ms. Ueda was faced with the impossible decision of choosing between her spouse and leaving the United States. Our Federal laws may split their family apart. This is unfair and it is wrong.

Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act infringe upon the States' traditional and historic right to define marriage, it denies many Americans equal treatment under the law. What good is a Federal law that dictates such a result? Ideological purity alone is not sufficient to overcome the harm that is caused. As I just acknowledged, my own thinking has evolved over the years as I have learned from my constituents and fellow Americans. Yet, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act would not force any State or individual to recognize a marriage they didn't agree with. Instead, it would restore the role that States have historically played in determining who can be married under its laws.

I am confident that justice and fairness will prevail in the end. Our Nation is too noble and our sense of liberty too strong to tolerate injustice without end. I am heartened by the progress that we are seeing across the country. Public consciousness is evolving, and will reach the point at which discrimination based on sexual orientation becomes another sad relic of our past. I believe we will look back at these prejudices with disappointment and regret, just as we have at other points in our history. But the capacity of our Nation to evolve and progress is a defining characteristic of the American spirit. And the American people ultimately come to reject that which is fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Just as Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda are living examples of just how devastating the Defense of Marriage Act is for so many Americans, there are others in Vermont who are facing and have faced the same struggles. Gordon Stewart, who testified before the Judiciary Committee in 2009, was compelled to sell his family's farm in Vermont and move abroad in order to live lawfully with his partner. Nancy Wasserman was compelled to leave Vermont and move to Canada to be able to live with her spouse. She can now legally enjoy the benefits of marriage that would otherwise be denied to her wife in the United States. Michael Upton, a doctor and native of Vermont is forced to live apart from his loved one. No Vermonter, and no American, should be forced to make this choice.

In addition to my strong support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, I introduced the Uniting American Families Act to help right a part of this wrong. My legislation would grant same-sex binational couples the same immigration benefits provided to heterosexual couples. Passage of this important legislation would help put our country on par with over 25 other developed countries that value and respect human rights.

In the United States, 10 states and the District of Columbia have marriage equality laws. The tide continues to swell in favor of same- sex equality with the New Jersey Legislature passing a marriage equality bill this year, which was vetoed by Governor Christie. It is clear that Americans are increasingly accepting of same-sex loving relationships and marriages, and that more and more Americans are putting aside tired stereotypes and their personal preferences to support individual freedom and the basic rights of all Americans. Now, the Federal Government must respect the sovereignty of these States and the protections those States have provided its citizens.

Having worked over many months to support Takako Ueda and Frances Herbert, it is clear to me that the love and devotion that they have for one another is no different or less sacred than that which I share with my wife, Marcelle. It is no less real, or important, or worthy of protection and recognition. I have been blessed to be married for nearly 50 years. Marcelle and I have been able to enjoy the family unity and the benefits that legal recognition provides, and which I hope all Americans would agree is fundamental.

As the Senate moves through the second session of the 112th Congress, I will keep fighting for Takako Ueda and Frances Herbert, for Gordon Stewart, Nancy Wasserman, and Michael Upton, and for all Americans who face discrimination as the result of the Defense of Marriage Act. I know that justice is on our side.

Madam President, what is the order? I had understood I was to be recognized at 1:45. Am I incorrect?

I am pleased that the Majority Leader and the Republican leader came to an understanding yesterday and a path forward so that we can finally consider the two judicial nominations the Senate will vote on today. With a judicial vacancies crisis that has lasted years, and nearly one in 10 judgeships across the Nation vacant, the Senate needs to continue to work to have a positive impact and reduce judicial vacancies significantly before the end of the year.

In light of the agreement reached between the leaders, the Senate will finally be allowed to consider the nomination of Judge Gina Groh of West Virginia. Judge Gina Groh currently serves as a Circuit Judge in the 23rd Judicial Circuit for the State of West Virginia, the first female circuit judge in the eastern panhandle region of West Virginia. She is one of only three women serving as a circuit judge throughout the state. Judge Groh was nominated to the state court in 2006 on the recommendation of a bipartisan merit selection panel, and won a successful retention election in 2008. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Groh served for eight years as state prosecutor and nine years in private practice. Her nomination, which has the support of both of West Virginia's Senators, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Manchin, and was reported with the support of every Democrat and every Republican on the Judiciary Committee last October. She has been waiting for this confirmation vote for more than five months while her nomination has been stalled along with so many others.

The Senate will also finally be able to consider the nomination of Michael Fitzgerald to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Central District of California. His nomination has the strong support of his home state Senators, Senators Feinstein and Boxer. If confirmed, Mr. Fitzgerald will be the first openly gay man confirmed to the Federal bench in the state of California. Mr. Fitzgerald has worked in private practice for more than two decades, and before that, served as a Federal prosecutor. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court, its highest possible rating. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last November. He has been waiting four and one half months for this vote.

Unlike the 57 of President Bush's District Court nominations confirmed within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, these qualified, consensus nominees have been needlessly stalled from final consideration. The application of the ``new standard'' the junior Senator from Utah conceded Republicans are applying to President Obama's nominees continues to hurt the people of West Virginia and California, who should not have to wait any longer for judges to fill these important Federal trial court vacancies.

The nominations of Judge Groh and Mr. Fitzgerald are two of the 22 circuit and district court nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus nominations. There was never any good reason for the Senate not to proceed to votes on these nominations. It should not have taken cloture petitions to get agreement to schedule votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominations. In addition to the two nominations we consider today, another 10 of the nominations on which agreement has now been reached have been stalled for months and were reported last year.

Among the nominees included in the leaders' agreement are two outstanding

women nominated to fill vacancies on important circuit courts that have been delayed since last year--Stephanie Dawn Thacker of West Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California, nominated to fill one of the many judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Thacker, an experienced litigator and prosecutor, has the strong support of her home state Senators, Senators Rockefeller and Manchin. Judge Nguyen, whose family fled to the United States in 1975 after the fall of South Vietnam, was confirmed unanimously to the district court in 2009 and would become the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve on a U.S. Court of Appeals. Both were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year and both should be confirmed by the Senate without additional damaging delays.

All 22 of the nominees awaiting a vote by the Senate are qualified judicial nominees. They are nominees whose judicial philosophy is well within the mainstream. These are all nominees supported by their home state Senators, both Republican and Democratic. The consequence of these months of delays is borne by the nearly 160 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down votes on the 22 judicial nominations currently before the Senate awaiting a confirmation vote.

We must continue with the pattern set by yesterday's agreement to make progress beyond the 14 nominations in that agreement and beyond the 22 nominations currently on the calendar. There are another eight judicial nominees working who have had hearings and are working their way through the Committee process. In addition, there are another 11 nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional hearings during the next several weeks. By working steadily and by continuing the resumption of the regular consideration of judicial nominations I hope the understanding between the leaders signals, we can do as we did in 2004 and 2008 to ensure that the Federal courts have the judges they need to provide justice for all Americans without needless delay. In those presidential election years, we worked together to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest levels in decades.

Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait three years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

We 100 Senators stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans. It is good to see the Senate agreeing to end the partisan stalling and schedule votes on these long-delayed and much-needed judges.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, when I hear concerns that the Republican delays are all the fault of President Obama, it sort of makes me think of some of the dialogue from the movie ``Casablanca''. I should tell my colleagues that there are 83 vacancies, sure. Several of them are without a nomination because this President is trying to work with home State Senators, including 24 vacancies involving a Republican home State Senator who hasn't agreed to anybody. There are seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot proceed because Republican Senators haven't returned blue slips indicating their support. We had somebody else who we were going to consider in Committee. Two Republican Senators had returned blue slips; they withdrew them and we had to take that name off the agenda.

So we try to protect Republicans' rights in the committee and, suddenly, we are at fault because they are blocking people who have gone through unanimously. Well, none of these complaints would give any excuse for failure to move on nominees that went through with every single Republican, every single Democrat voting for them.

Instead of being voted on in a week, as 57 did during President Bush's first term, these nominees sit here for month after month after month.

Mr. President, I believe we have reached the time for the vote. Am I correct?

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Circus Smirkus, the award-winning international touring youth circus based out of Greensboro, VT. A treasured Vermont institution, renowned well beyond our borders, this year Circus Smirkus is celebrating its 25th anniversary.

Circus Smirkus was founded by Rob Mermin, who ran away to join the circus at the age of 19 when summer camps for aspiring performers did not exist. Upon moving to Greensboro in 1987, Rob started the program to promote the culture and skills of the circus and to inspire youth to enter the arts and experience the adventure of a traveling show.

Today Circus Smirkus is the only youth circus in America to put on a full-season tour under its own big top, a 750-seat, one-ring, European- style circus tent. Every summer, a company of talented troupers, ages 10 to 18, arrives and rehearses the show at Smirkus's headquarters in the Circus Barn in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. Then 30 young clowns, aerialists and acrobats take the show on the road, staging more than 70 performances across New England in just 7 weeks.

The program is a complete immersion in circus life, including long hours, rigorous training, and daily chores. Most graduates--known as Smirkos--describe their experiences as life-changing and as having forged some of their most cherished memories. The young performers come from as far away as Mongolia, New Zealand, and Siberia. Since its founding the circus has fostered youth exchanges with more than 25 nations.

Marcel Marceau, the famed French mime, broke his silence to call Circus Smirkus ``an absolutely wonderful task: to bring children hope for the future, to create an entirely new form of circus and make it universal.'' He was so right. I see the skill they develop in young performers and the joy they bring to every audience--including Marcelle and me when we take our grandchildren each summer in Vermont. I wish Circus Smirkus the best for this special milestone season and in all the years to come.