Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Chung, a Department of Justice detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be given Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the filibuster has

been dropped on this very good man. This nomination has taken months to get here. I would urge everybody to vote for it.

Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for pressing forward to obtain a vote on the nomination of Jesse Furman, finally bringing to an end the 5-month Republican filibuster of this nomination. It should not have taken five months and the filing of a cloture petition to secure a vote on this superbly qualified, consensus nominee. When the Judiciary Committee voted on this nomination last September, it had the support of every Democrat and ever Republican on the Committee. Yesterday, I spoke, again, of the dangers posed by this Republican filibuster of a consensus Federal district court nominee. I am glad Senate Republicans have backed away from their misguided effort.

The extended delay in considering the Furman nomination has not only been damaging to the Federal District Court of New York, but also to the people it serves. This has also led to some extreme groups on the far right making scurrilous attacks on the reputation of this good man. I trust that no Senator will credit the mischaracterizations of Mr. Furman's record. His role in filing an amicus brief in a First Amendment case in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League when he was in private practice has been misquoted and mischaracterized to the point where you have to wonder if it is intentional. Of course, no lawyer should be disqualified from being a judge for advocating on behalf of client. Were the Senate to go down that road, we would disqualify many outstanding lawyers capable of being excellent judges. Senate Republicans filibustered Judge Jack McConnell of Rhode Island because he represented parents and children exposed to health risks by lead in paint. That error should not be repeated.

I am glad the Senate is finally voting on this nomination. With 21 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee awaiting a final vote, with one out of every 10 Federal judgeships vacant throughout the country, and with the Senate still more than 40 confirmations behind the pace we set with President Bush, the Senate cannot afford this continuing obstruction and delay of judicial confirmations. This filibuster, like the filibuster of Judge Adalberto Jordan that we finally ended earlier this week and others, bring derision upon the Senate, are a colossal waste of the time, and harm our Federal courts and the American people seeking justice.

I, again, urge Senate Republicans to abandon the damaging tactics that led to this unnecessary 5-month filibuster of the Furman nomination, the shameful 4-month and 2-day filibuster of the Jordan nomination, and to abandon their continued stalling of 20 additional judicial nominees ready for final consideration and confirmation. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to join with us to restore the Senate's longstanding practice of considering and confirming consensus nominees without extended delays. The American people deserve no less.

I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, Congress has taken an important step today to address the looming spectrum crunch that our country faces as well as provide first responders with the nationwide network that they undoubtedly need. From cell phones to WiFi to broadcast television and radio, spectrum fuels some of the most critical technologies of the modern age. Empowering the Federal Communications Commission to conduct voluntary auctions in order to recover potentially underutilized spectrum will ensure that the public airwaves are being put to the best possible use. I am particularly pleased to see that this provision contains language that will protect broadcast television stations along the Canadian border.

A potential consequence of the spectrum auctions that Congress has been considering is that the Federal Communications Commission may need to ``repack'' or move certain television stations to new channels to appropriately free up spectrum. This type of repacking occurred following the transition to digital television and put some broadcast stations in Vermont in the position of having to reduce power to avoid interference with Canadian broadcast signals. Further repacking without appropriate protection could have serious consequences for stations in Vermont and elsewhere along the border. The language in the bill Congress has passed today makes sure that repacking along our borders is subject to international coordination with Canada and Mexico.

In January, I joined with the other members of Vermont's Congressional delegation in sending a letter to Secretary of State Clinton requesting that the State Department explore a new spectrum coordination agreement with Canada. As Congress moves forward today with approving spectrum auctions, I once again call for a new agreement that will ensure adequate spectrum exists for repacking in Vermont and elsewhere along the border. Broadcast television is critically important to communities across this country, and the steps Congress has taken today will make sure that residents relying on this free service do not see significant disruptions due to a lack of international coordination.

The voluntary spectrum auctions that Congress has approved today are an important step in freeing up the airwaves for new and innovative uses. The auction provision also ensures that public safety will finally have a nationwide broadband network at its disposal, which was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am pleased that stakeholders came together to craft a compromise that will help to spur innovation, improve public safety, and preserve access to the free, over-the-air television that is so important our communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

The Senate was forced to spend the better part of this week ending a filibuster against the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. Finally, after a four month Republican filibuster that was broken on Monday by an 89 5 cloture vote, and after Republicans insisted on two additional days of delay, the Senate was allowed to vote on the nomination. We voted 94 5 to confirm Judge Jordan. I suspect the vote would have been the same four months and two days sooner. It was a colossal waste of the Senate's time and another week lost to obstruction and delay.

Now the Senate Majority Leader has been required to file another cloture petition on yet another consensus nominee. This is the ninth time the Majority Leader has had to file a cloture petition to overcome a Republican filibuster of one of President Obama's superbly-qualified judicial nominees. The nomination of Jesse Furman to fill a vacancy on the Southern District of New York has been stalled for more than five months after being reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Consensus nominations like this to Federal district courts have nearly always been taken up and confirmed by the Senate within days or weeks, whether nominated by a Democratic or a Republican President. Certainly that was the approach taken by Senate Democrats when President Bush sent us consensus nominees. That is how we reduced vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades and how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominees in his first term. Yet, in an almost complete reversal of this approach, Mr. Furman's nomination has been blocked by Senate Republicans for over five months, without reason or explanation.

Regrettably, for the second time, we will have to vote to end a Republican filibuster of one of President Obama's district court nominations. I cannot recall a single instance in which a President's judicial nomination to a Federal trial court, a Federal district court, was blocked by a filibuster. Yet, Senate Republicans nearly did so last year when they sought to filibuster Judge Jack McConnell's nomination to the Rhode Island District Court, despite the strong support of both home state Senators who know their state best. At that time I emphasized the danger of rejecting the Senate's traditional deference to home state Senators and beginning to filibuster district court nominations. Fortunately, the Senate rejected that filibuster and that path and Judge McConnell was confirmed. I trust the Senate will do so again, bringing to an end another filibuster, this time for a district court nominee, Mr. Furman, who was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Like the needless delay in Judge Jordan's confirmation, the Republican filibuster of Jesse Furman, who by any traditional measure is a consensus nominee, is another example of the tactics that have all but paralyzed the Senate confirmation process and are damaging our Federal courts. It should not take five months and require a cloture motion for the Senate to proceed to vote on this nomination. At a time when nearly one out of every 10 judgeships is vacant and we have over 20 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Committee, 16 of which have been stalled on the Senate calendar since last year, nearly all of them superbly-qualified consensus nominees, our Federal courts and the American people cannot afford more of these partisan tactics.

I read with interest this morning Gail Collins' column in The New York Times on the approval rating of Congress. She notes that Congress is ``unpopular like the Ebola virus, or zombies . . . like TV shows about hoarders with dead cats in their kitchens.'' She goes on to discuss the Republican filibusters of judicial nominees and writes:

This week, the Senate confirmed Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan

to a seat on the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit in Atlanta. A visitor from another country might not

have appreciated the proportions of this achievement, given

that Jordan, who was born in Cuba and who once clerked for

Sandra Day O'Connor, had no discernible opposition.

I ask consent that a copy of Ms. Collins' column be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

This is the kind of obstruction that is hard to explain to the American people. This Republican filibuster, like that of Judge Jordan, is very hard to understand. Jesse Furman is an experienced Federal prosecutor who has prosecuted international narcotics trafficking and terrorism and consulted on some of the Southern District's most complex cases, including the Galleon insider trading case, the prosecution of former Madoff employees, and the Times Square bomber case. A dedicated public servant, Mr. Furman has been a law clerk at all three levels of the Federal judiciary, including as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

I got to know Mr. Furman when he was the counselor to Attorney General Michael Mukasey. That is right: The Senate Republicans are filibustering someone strongly supported by President Bush's Attorney General who was himself a Federal judge. When Mr. Furman's nomination was before the Committee last summer, Attorney General Mukasey wrote to the Committee in strong support:

All I can hope to add is my own belief that he is a person

to whom one can entrust decisions that are consequential to

the lives of people and to the general welfare of the

populace, with confidence that they will be made wisely and

fairly . . . and I urge that he be confirmed.

Former Supreme Court clerks who served at the same time as Mr. Furman, including clerks for conservative Justices such as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia wrote in support of Mr. Furman's nomination, stating that, ``Mr. Furman has demonstrated his deep respect for and commitment to the rule of law, over and above politics or ideology.''

With this bipartisan support, the strong support of his home state Senators, and his impressive background, Mr. Furman's nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 15, without opposition from a single member of the Committee. We should have voted on his nomination many months ago, and certainly before the end of the last session. Senate Republicans have blocked this nomination for over five months without any explanation.

Sadly, this is not the first New York judge to be filibustered by Senate Republicans. Just a few years ago, Judge Denny Chin, an outstanding nominee with 16 years of judicial experience, was delayed from being elevated to the Second Circuit for four months until the Majority Leader forced a vote and he was confirmed 98 0.

Last May, the Majority Leader was required to file for cloture to end the filibuster of Judge Jack McConnell of Rhode Island. By rejecting that filibuster, the Senate took a step toward restoring a longstanding tradition of deference to home state Senators with regard to Federal District Court nominations. The Senate turned away from a precipice. It is wrong now for us to approach that precipice again. Filibustering this nomination would set a new standard for obstruction of judicial nominations.

Indeed, I have looked back over the last six decades and found only four district court nominations--four in over 60 years, on which cloture was even filed. For two of those, the cloture petitions were withdrawn after procedural issues were resolved. In connection with the other two, the Senate voted on cloture and it was invoked and the filibuster ended. All of those nominations were confirmed.

From the start of President Obama's term, Republican Senators have applied a heightened and unfair standard to President Obama's district court nominees. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference on district court nominees to the home state Senators who know the needs of their states best. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama's highly-qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction. That approach is a serious break from the Senate's practice of advice and consent. Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Out of these 2,100 nominees, only six have been reported by party-line votes. Only six total in the last 65 years. Five of those six party-line votes have been against President Obama's highly-qualified district court nominees. Indeed, only 22 of those 2,100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split roll call vote at all, and eight of those, more than a third, have been President Obama's nominees.

Democrats never applied this standard to President Bush's district court nominees, whether in the majority or the minority. And certainly, there were nominees to the district court put forth by that administration that were considered ideologues. All told, in eight years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district court nomination by a party line vote. President Obama's nominees are being treated differently than those of any President, Democratic or Republican, before him.

When I first became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, I followed a time when Senate Republicans, who had been in the majority, had pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, blocking them with secret holds in backrooms and cloakrooms, obstructing more with winks and nods, but with little to no public explanation or accountability. I worked hard to change that and to open up the process. I sought to bring daylight to the process by making the consultation with home state Senators public so that the Senate Republicans' abuses during the Clinton years would not be repeated.

When Senate Democrats opposed some of President Bush's most ideological nominees, we did so openly, saying why we opposed them. And when there were consensus nominees--nominees with the support of both Democrats and Republicans--we moved them quickly so they could begin serving the American people. That is how we reduced vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades. That is how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's circuit and district nominees in his first term.

Now we see the reverse of how we treated President Bush's nominees. Senate Republicans do not move quickly to consider consensus nominees, like the 14 still on the Senate Calendar that were reported unanimously last year and should have had a Senate vote last year. Instead, as we are seeing today and have seen all too often, Senate Republicans obstruct and delay even consensus nominees, leaving us 43 judicial nominees behind the pace we set for confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. That is why vacancies remain so high, at 86, over three years into President Obama's first term. Vacancies are nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush's

third year. That is why 130 million Americans live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could have a judge if Senate Republicans would only consent to vote on judicial nominees that have been favorably voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate Executive Calendar since last year.

This is an area where we should be working for the American people, and putting their needs first. It is the American people who pay the price for the Senate's unnecessary and harmful delay in confirming judges to our Federal courts. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who are seeking their day in court to find seats on one in 10 of those courts vacant. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait for years before a judge hears his or her case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. With over 20 judicial nominees favorably reported by the Committee and cloture motions being required for consensus nominees, the Senate is failing in its responsibility, harming our Federal courts and ultimately hurting the American people. Is it any wonder that barely 10 percent of the American people view Congress favorably?

The slow pace of confirmations of President Obama's judicial nominees is no accident or happenstance. It is the result of deliberate obstruction and delays. For the second year in a row, the Senate Republican leadership ignored long-established precedent and refused to schedule any votes before the December recess on the nearly 20 consensus judicial nominees who had been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. Here we are in the middle of February fighting to hold a vote on one of the 18 nominees who should have been confirmed last year. Fourteen of the nominees being blockaded by Senate Republicans were reported with the unanimous support of their home state Senators and every Republican and every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The result of these Republican delay tactics is clear--we are far behind the pace set by the Senate during President George W. Bush's first term, with a judicial vacancy rate nearly twice what it was at this point in his first term.

During President George W. Bush's administration, Republican Senators insisted that filibusters of judicial nominees were unconstitutional. They threatened the ``nuclear option'' in 2005 to guarantee up-or-down votes for each of President Bush's judicial nominees. Many Republican Senators declared that they would never support the filibuster of a judicial nomination--never. Yet, only a few years later, Senate Republicans reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench who had the support of the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator Lugar. The Senate rejected that filibuster and Judge Hamilton was confirmed.

But the partisan delays and opposition have continued. Senate Republicans have required cloture votes even for nominees who ended up being confirmed unanimously when the Senate finally overcame those filibusters and voted on their nomination. So it was with Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit, who was confirmed 99 0 when the filibuster of her nomination finally ended in 2010, and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit, an outstanding nominee with 16 years judicial experience, who was ultimately confirmed 98 0 when the Republican filibuster was overcome after four months of needless delays. Just this week the long-delayed nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan to the Eleventh Circuit was confirmed 94 5.

This obstruction is particularly damaging at a time when judicial vacancies remain at record highs. There are currently 86 judicial vacancies across the country, meaning that nearly one out of every 10 Federal judgeships remains vacant. The vacancy rate is nearly double what it had been reduced to by this point in the Bush administration, when we worked together to reduce judicial vacancies to 46.

Some Senate Republicans are now seeking to excuse these months of delay by blaming President Obama for forcing them to do it. They point to President Obama's recent recess appointments of a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and members of the National Labor Relations Board. Of course, those appointments were made a few weeks ago, long after Judge Jordan's nomination was already being delayed. Moreover, the President took his action because Senate Republicans had refused to vote on those executive nominations and were intent on rendering the Government agencies unable to enforce the law and carry out their critical work on behalf of the American people. Some Senate Republicans are doubling down on their obstruction in response. They are apparently extending their blockage against nominees beyond executive branch nominees to these much-needed judicial nominees. This needless obstruction accentuates the burdens on our Federal courts and delays in justice to the American people. We can ill afford these additional delays and protest votes. The Senate needs, instead, to come together to address the needs of hardworking Americans around the country.

I, again, urge Senate Republicans to stop the destructive delays that have plagued our nominations process. I urge them to join us not only in rejecting the five-month filibuster of Mr. Furman's nomination, but also in restoring the Senate's longstanding practice of considering and confining consensus nominees without extended and damaging delays. The American people deserve no less.

Exhibit 1

Congress Has No Date for the Prom

(By Gail Collins)

I am shocked to report that Congress, the beating heart of

American democracy, is unpopular.

Not unpopular like a shy kid in junior high. Unpopular like

the Ebola virus, or zombies. Held in near-universal contempt,

like TV shows about hoarders with dead cats in their

kitchens. Or people who get students to call you up during

dinner and ask you to give money to your old university.

The latest Gallup poll gave Congress a 10 percent approval

rating. As Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado keeps pointing

out, that's lower than BP during the oil spill, Nixon during

Watergate or banks during the banking crisis.

On the plus side, while 86 percent of respondents told

Gallup that they disapproved of the job Congress was doing,

only 4 percent said they had no opinion. That's really a

great sense of public awareness, given the fact that other

surveys show less than half of all Americans know who their

member of Congress is.

So little attention, yet so much rancor. We're presuming

that this is because of the dreaded partisan gridlock, which

has made Congress increasingly unproductive in matters that

do not involve the naming of post offices.

And Congress is listening! Lately, we have been seeing

heartening new signs of bipartisan cooperation. For instance,

the House and Senate are near an agreement on the payroll tax

cut, namely that it will continue and not be paid for.

This is actually sort of a tradition. No matter who is in

power in Washington, Congress has always shown a remarkable

ability to band together and pass tax cuts that are not paid

for. It's like naming post offices, only somewhat more

expensive.

But there's much, much more. For instance, both chambers

recently approved a big new ethics reform bill that would ban

members of Congress from engaging in insider trading.

Perhaps you imagined that this was already against the law.

This piece of legislation had been lying around gathering

dust since 2006. But, this year, the House and Senate decided

to stand tall and pass it as a matter of principle. It had

nothing to do with a ``60 Minutes'' report that made the

whole place look like a convention of grifters. Totally

unrelated. This was simply a bill whose time had come.

And that bill would probably already be signed into law

were it not for a disagreement over whether to require the

high-paid professionals who poke around Congress collecting

information that might be of use to their Wall Street clients

to register the same way lobbyists do.

You'd think this would be easy to sort out since most

members of the House and the Senate have gone on the record

in favor of registering these guys.

But, no, the idea ran afoul of the House majority leader,

Eric Cantor, the Darth Vader of Capitol Hill. Cantor says the

idea should be studied, which is, of course, legislatese for

``trampled to death by a thousand boots.''

Still, the good news is that the basic idea of prohibiting

members of Congress from using the information they acquire

in the course of their public duties to engage in insider

trading did pass both chambers by enormous majorities.

Yippee.

And the bipartisan cooperation keeps rolling on. This week,

the Senate confirmed Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan to a seat on

the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

A visitor from another country might not have appreciated the

proportions of this achievement, given the fact that Jordan,

who was born in Cuba and who once clerked for Sandra Day

O'Connor, had no discernible opposition.

But Americans ought to have a better grasp of how the

Senate works. The nomination's progress had long been

thwarted by Mike Lee, a freshman Republican from Utah, who

has decided to hold up every single White House appointment

to anything out of pique over . . . well, it doesn't really

matter. When you're a senator, you get to do that kind of

thing.

This forced the majority leader, Harry Reid, to get 60

votes to move Judge Jordan forward, which is never all that

easy. Then there was further delay thanks to Rand Paul, a

freshman from Kentucky, who stopped action for as long as

possible because he was disturbed about foreign aid to Egypt.

All that is forgotten now. The nomination was approved, 94

to 5, only 125 days after it was unanimously O.K.'d by the

Judiciary Committee. Whiners in the White House pointed out

that when George W. Bush was president, circuit court

nominations got to a floor vote in an average of 28 days.

No matter. Good work, Senate! Only 17 more long-pending

judicial nominations to go!

Meanwhile, the House named a post office in Missouri for a

fallen Marine.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the European Debt Crisis and Its Implications.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled, ``Iran's Influence and Activity in Latin America.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing Workforce Needs at the Regional Level: Innovative Public and Private Partnerships'' on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing America's Future: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Iran's Influence and Activity in Latin America.''

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Cyber Crime Protection Security Act, a bill to strengthen our Nation's cybercrime laws. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation today, and an issue that the Senate will tackle in the coming weeks. A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of that conversation.

Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyberspace has long been a priority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In September, the Committee favorably reported legislation which included a provision essentially identical to this bill as a part of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Since then, I have worked closely with Senator Grassley to advance cyber crime legislation that will have strong bipartisan support.

Cyber crime impacts all of us, regardless of political party or ideology. Recently, several Republican Senators stated the following in an opinion piece about the Senate's cybersecurity legislation: ``In addition, our nation's criminal laws must be updated to account for the growing number of cybercrimes. We support legislation to clarify and expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act--including increasing existing penalties, defining new offenses and clarifying the scope of current criminal conduct. These changes will ensure that our criminal laws keep pace with the ever-evolving threats posed by cybercriminals.'' I could not agree more. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and I urge the Senate to quickly pass this important legislation.

We simply cannot afford to ignore the growing threat of cyber crime. A study released by Symantec Corp estimates that the cost of cybercrime globally is $114 billion a year. During the past year, we have witnessed major data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, RSA, the International Monetary Fund, and Lockheed Martin, just to name a few. In addition, our Government computer networks have not been spared, as evidenced by the hacking incidents involving the websites of the Senate and Central Intelligence Agency.

The Cyber Crime Protection Security Act takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. First, the bill updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity, so that the Government can better prosecute organized criminal activity involving computer fraud. Second, the bill streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. To address cyber crime involving the trafficking of consumers' passwords, the bill also expands the scope of the offense for trafficking in passwords under title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(6) to include passwords used to access a protected Government or non-government computer, and to include any other means of unauthorized access to a Government computer.

In addition, the bill clarifies that both conspiracy and attempt to commit a computer hacking offense are subject to the same penalties as completed, substantive offenses, and the bill adds new forfeiture tools to help the Government recover the proceeds of illegal activity.

This legislation also strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our nation's critical infrastructure, by adding a new criminal offense that would make it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense, national security, transportation, public health and safety, or other critical infrastructure systems or information. Lastly, the bill clarifies that relatively innocuous conduct, such as violating a terms of use agreement, should not be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The bill is strongly supported by the Department of Justice, which is on the front lines of the battle against cybercrime. In fact, the criminal law updates in this bill were a part of the cybersecurity proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. We must give the dedicated prosecutors and investigators in our Government the tools that they need to address criminal activity in cyberspace.

To build a secure future for our Nation and its citizens in cyberspace, Congress must work together, across party lines and ideology, to address the dangers of cybercrime and other cyber threats. It is in that cooperative spirit that I urge all Senators to support this important cybercrime legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Cyber Crime Protection Security Act, a bill to strengthen our Nation's cybercrime laws. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation today, and an issue that the Senate will tackle in the coming weeks. A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of that conversation.

Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyberspace has long been a priority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In September, the Committee favorably reported legislation which included a provision essentially identical to this bill as a part of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Since then, I have worked closely with Senator Grassley to advance cyber crime legislation that will have strong bipartisan support.

Cyber crime impacts all of us, regardless of political party or ideology. Recently, several Republican Senators stated the following in an opinion piece about the Senate's cybersecurity legislation: ``In addition, our nation's criminal laws must be updated to account for the growing number of cybercrimes. We support legislation to clarify and expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act--including increasing existing penalties, defining new offenses and clarifying the scope of current criminal conduct. These changes will ensure that our criminal laws keep pace with the ever-evolving threats posed by cybercriminals.'' I could not agree more. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and I urge the Senate to quickly pass this important legislation.

We simply cannot afford to ignore the growing threat of cyber crime. A study released by Symantec Corp estimates that the cost of cybercrime globally is $114 billion a year. During the past year, we have witnessed major data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, RSA, the International Monetary Fund, and Lockheed Martin, just to name a few. In addition, our Government computer networks have not been spared, as evidenced by the hacking incidents involving the websites of the Senate and Central Intelligence Agency.

The Cyber Crime Protection Security Act takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. First, the bill updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity, so that the Government can better prosecute organized criminal activity involving computer fraud. Second, the bill streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. To address cyber crime involving the trafficking of consumers' passwords, the bill also expands the scope of the offense for trafficking in passwords under title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(6) to include passwords used to access a protected Government or non-government computer, and to include any other means of unauthorized access to a Government computer.

In addition, the bill clarifies that both conspiracy and attempt to commit a computer hacking offense are subject to the same penalties as completed, substantive offenses, and the bill adds new forfeiture tools to help the Government recover the proceeds of illegal activity.

This legislation also strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our nation's critical infrastructure, by adding a new criminal offense that would make it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense, national security, transportation, public health and safety, or other critical infrastructure systems or information. Lastly, the bill clarifies that relatively innocuous conduct, such as violating a terms of use agreement, should not be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The bill is strongly supported by the Department of Justice, which is on the front lines of the battle against cybercrime. In fact, the criminal law updates in this bill were a part of the cybersecurity proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. We must give the dedicated prosecutors and investigators in our Government the tools that they need to address criminal activity in cyberspace.

To build a secure future for our Nation and its citizens in cyberspace, Congress must work together, across party lines and ideology, to address the dangers of cybercrime and other cyber threats. It is in that cooperative spirit that I urge all Senators to support this important cybercrime legislation.

Mr. President, Republican Senators delayed a final vote on the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida even though the Senate voted 89-5 last night to end a Republican filibuster that has already prevented a vote for 4 months. This is a consensus nominee who Senator Nelson has been strongly supporting and who Senator Rubio also supports. He should have been confirmed 4 months ago. He should have been confirmed last night after the overwhelming cloture vote. Instead, obstruction needlessly delayed the Senate acting to fill the emergency judicial vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit.

Senator Nelson has worked hard for this nomination, working to get Judge Jordan's nomination cleared by every Democratic Senator in October immediately after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. We were ready to vote in October. We were ready to vote in November. We were ready to vote before the end of the last session of Congress in December. It is hard to believe that it is now the middle of February, over 4 months after Judge Jordan's nomination was reported with the support of every Democrat and every Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and the Senate still has not voted to fill this judicial emergency vacancy affecting the people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. I appreciate why Senator Nelson is frustrated. I understand why Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary and the Hispanic National Bar Association are, too.

Let me refer to some of the reporting on this. One post begins:

So, here's the absurdity of our judicial confirmation

process--the full Senate voted 89-5 to invoke cloture,

meaning that Judge Jordan's nomination to the 11th Circuit

would finally come to a vote. But then Senator Nelson said

that one Senator is holding up the merits vote by demanding

30 more hours of `debate' post-cloture. Senators Leahy and

Boxer both then commented how ridiculous such a request was,

but that's the way it is. It looks like we'll have [to] wait

another 30 hours for Judge Jordan to move up to the 11th.

Silliness in our Congress . . . .

The article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports:

South Florida lawyers praise him. Both of Florida's U.S.

senators have recommended him. And the Senate Judiciary

Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination.

But U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan of South Florida

has been blocked for four months from rising to the 11th

Circuit Court of Appeals, the latest sign of a polarized and

dysfunctional Senate.

A Senate filibuster that has kept Jordan waiting and the

appellate court undermanned fizzled on Monday when the Senate

voted 89-5 to move toward a final confirmation vote.

But Jordan is still waiting because one senator . . .

objected to attempts to complete action on Monday . . . .

I have not heard from any Republican Senators objecting to this Judge explaining what they find wrong with this highly-qualified Cuban American. I am at a loss as to why Republican Senators continue to delay a vote on this outstanding nominee. This nominee is beyond reproach. This is another nomination battle that has nothing to do with the nominee and his qualifications. This is another example of obstruction based on a collateral objective. The people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama should not be made to suffer a judicial emergency vacancy

when this highly-qualified nominee should be confirmed without further delay. Nor did anyone come forward to explain the Senate Republicans' delay for the last 4 months. Cloture has been invoked by the Senate and the filibuster will be ended. There was no good reason to continue to hold up a vote that has already been delayed for 4 months.

When I first became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, I followed a time when Senate Republicans, who had been in the majority, had pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, blocking them with secret holds in backrooms and cloakrooms, obstructing more with winks and nods, but with little to no public explanation or accountability. I worked hard to change that and to open up the process. I sought to bring daylight to the process by making the consultation with home State Senators public so that the Senate Republicans' abuses during the Clinton years would not be repeated.

When Senate Democrats opposed some of President Bush's most ideological nominees, we did so openly, saying why we opposed them. And when there were consensus nominees--nominees with the support of both Democrats and Republicans--we moved them quickly so they could begin serving the American people. That is how we reduced vacancies in the Presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades. That is how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominees in his first term.

Now we see the reverse of how we treated President Bush's nominees. Senate Republicans do not move quickly to consider consensus nominees, like the 15 still on the Senate calendar that were reported unanimously last year and should have had a Senate vote last year. Instead, as we are seeing today and have seen all too often, Senate Republicans obstruct and delay even consensus nominees, leaving us 45 judicial nominees behind the pace we set for confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. That is why vacancies remain so high, at 86, over 3 years into President Obama's first term. Vacancies are nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush's third year. That is why half of all Americans--nearly 160 million--live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could have a judge if Senate Republicans would only consent to vote on judicial nominees that have been favorably voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate executive calendar since last year.

This is an area where we should be working for the American people, and putting their needs first. This is a nomination that has the strong and committed support of the senior Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, as well as that of Senator Rubio, Florida's Republican Senator. Judge Jordan had the unanimous support of every Republican and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee when we voted last October, although one Republican switched his vote last night to support the filibuster of Judge Jordan's nomination. This is the nomination of a judge, Judge Jordan, who was confirmed to the district court by a vote of 93 to one in 1999, even while Senate Republicans were pocket filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees.

I regret that Republican Senators chose to delay a final vote on Judge Jordan's confirmation. He is a fine man who, after emigrating from Havana, Cuba at the age of 6 went on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Miami law school and clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Federal prosecutor and Federal judge. The needless delay of Judge Jordan's confirmation is an example of the harmful tactics that have all but paralyzed the Senate confirmation process and are damaging our Federal courts.

It should not take 4 months and require a cloture motion to proceed to a nomination such as that of Judge Jordan to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. It should not take more months and more cloture motions before the Senate finally votes on the nearly 20 other superbly-qualified judicial nominees who have been stalled by Senate Republicans for months while vacancies continue to plague our Federal courts and delay justice for the American people. The American people need and deserve Federal courts ready to serve them, not empty benches and long delays.

Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to comments of the junior Senator from Kentucky earlier today regarding his amendment to cut off all U.S. aid for Egypt.

First, let's take a step back. The new conditions on military aid for Egypt, which I wrote with Senator Lindsey Graham and were signed into law just 2 months ago, require a certification by the Secretary of State that the Egyptian military is supporting the transition to civilian government and protecting fundamental freedoms and due process. If the crisis involving the nongovernmental organizations whose offices were raided and are now facing criminal charges is not resolved satisfactorily, there is no way the certification can be made and Egypt will not receive $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid. But the Leahy-Graham conditions give the Administration flexibility to respond to this crisis. If we take a leap into the lurch and adopt the Paul Amendment, we risk causing a backlash and the opposite reaction of what we want.

It is ironic that the junior Senator from Kentucky, who is now insisting on a vote on his amendment to cut off all aid--not just military aid but also economic aid--did not even vote for the Omnibus bill that contained the Leahy-Graham certification requirement. For him it is all or nothing, but the real world is not so black and white.

No one disagrees with the goals of the Paul Amendment. Its purpose is no different than the Leahy-Graham provision in current law that has caused the suspension of military aid. We are all outraged by the crackdown against the NGOs. We want the charges dropped and their property returned so they can resume their pro-democracy work. But the scope of the Paul Amendment is so sweeping that it could backfire and make the situation immeasurably worse: The amendment cuts off all U.S. aid to Egypt--current and prior year--including hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid and funding for anti-terrorism and nonproliferation programs. Aid that supports the Government of Egypt's ability to interdict arms shipments to Gaza would be cut off.

There is much at stake: the fate of the 19 American citizens facing criminal charges in Egypt; Egypt's continued adherence to the Israeli- Egyptian Peace Agreement could be jeopardized; over-flights for U.S. military aircraft; access to the Suez Canal; and the potential for further crackdowns against Egyptian civil society organizations.

If the Administration were ignoring the certification requirement in current law I might vote for this amendment, but they are not. In fact, the NGOs have repeatedly praised the Administration's efforts on their behalf. They have applauded the new leverage provided by the Leahy- Graham conditions. Both the State Department and the Pentagon are intensely focused on trying to resolve this. General Dempsey was just in Egypt meeting with top military officials about it.

If, over the coming days or weeks the situation continues to deteriorate, we can revisit this. But I would urge the junior Senator from Kentucky to withdraw his amendment until such time and to refrain from obstructing other business of the Senate. Let us see how things play out. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. The Egyptian military will recognize that these NGOs were doing nothing more than supporting the transition to democracy in an appropriate and transparent manner, and the Egyptian military will agree that it is in Egypt's best interest to preserve close relations with the United States.

I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the time postcloture count during morning business and any recess or adjournment of the Senate.

Madam President, I have been here for 37 years. I could not agree more with the distinguished senior Senator from Florida. He notes that 4 months ago, when Judge Adelberto Jordan came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with every single Republican and every single Democrat voting for him, after the work done by the distinguished senior Senator from Florida and his colleague from Florida, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, made a commitment that every single Democrat would vote for this Cuban American immediately. Four months later, having had the cloture vote the Senator from Florida just mentioned--there was overwhelming support for him--he is still being held up. This is beneath the Senate of the United States of America. I agree with the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, with the Senator from Kentucky still on the floor, I appreciate what he has said, and I am glad he has shown support for the Leahy amendment which passed in the last foreign aid bill.

There was a lot of pushback from a number of people, the administration and on the Senator's side of the aisle, initially, when I wrote into the law that said it would suspend any money--$1.3 billion--for the military, unless there was a certification that they were upholding the moves necessary toward democracy.

As a result, all the money the Senator is concerned about is being held back because of the Leahy amendment--which is joined in by Senator Graham, whom I see coming onto the floor--when we did the Foreign Operations bill.

I appreciate the words of the Senator from Kentucky. I can assure him, with the Leahy amendment, none of the foreign aid is going to Egypt as they conduct their operations the way they are.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of the reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act report.

For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Senator Crapo and I introduced this bill, a moderate bill, which has now gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee and should be voted up or voted down. It saves money, but it also commits to those programs needed by our States.

At some point, if it is delayed much longer, I am going to come to the floor and recount some of the horrific crime scenes I went to of violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, the things that are being combated now, things that happened when we did not have the Violence Against Women Act.

Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the Federal government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

It has been extraordinarily effective, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the landmark law was first passed.

As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims.

We must not go back to those days. This law saves lives, and it must be reauthorized.

Senator Crapo and I introduced a moderate bill that incorporates input from survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the country and the tireless professionals who serve them every day.

This legislation builds on the progress that has been made in reducing violence against women, and it makes vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs.

Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to stop this critical legislation from moving forward. We have seen this same pattern too often.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Second Chance Act, both laws originally championed by Republican Senators and supported by Republican Presidents, are now suddenly unacceptable.

This obstruction must stop. These programs are too important. They save lives. They make our communities safer.

Nowhere is that more true than for the Violence Against Women Act. Certainly, helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence should be above politics.

The last two times VAWA was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Now, this law, which has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence than any other legislation ever passed, faces Republican opposition. That is not right.

To those who suggest that this legislation creates too many new programs, I say that is simply not true. In fact, the bill reduces the scale of VAWA.

It consolidates 13 existing programs and reduces authorization levels by nearly 20 percent while providing for only one small additional program.

The improvements in this bill are important but modest when compared to previous reauthorizations, which created many new grant programs and raised authorization levels almost across the board.

I have heard some say that our bill protects too many victims. I find that disheartening. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that every victim counts.

All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our States and something I hope is common ground.

More than 200 national organizations and 500 State and local organizations have expressed their support for this bill.

Many of them have written strong letters urging swift passage of this legislation including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

This legislation has the support of five Republican Senators.

I thank Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Brown, and Collins for their willingness to step forward and support the reauthorization of this landmark legislation.

This is the Violence Against Women Act. It should not be a partisan matter.

I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that we can move quickly to reauthorize this critical legislation.

It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.

Air National Guard and Reserves

Madam President, I am glad to see the senior Senator from South Carolina. For the first 50 or 60 years I was in the Senate--or it felt like that--it was a different senior Senator. But I am delighted to see the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, who is joining me to address a matter of great importance to the Nation at a crucial moment in our history.

The U.S. Air Force last week offered a preliminary look into its budget for fiscal year 2013. While the President will formally submit his budget proposals on Monday, last week's briefing and information papers offered enough detail for the Senate to begin considering the overall strategic direction of the Air Force Future Years Defense Program. In Pentagon jargon, that is usually called FYDP.

I have to say I am deeply disappointed and very worried as I look at the first glance at that proposal.

As an example of the approach to the budget cuts, one of the A-10 units slated for cutting, the 127th Wing from Michigan, just returned from fighting bravely in Afghanistan and as a welcome home: Great job. Sorry, we are going to disband you.

The approach to budget cuts the Air Force has decided to take is simply wrong. We have to have budget cuts. We know that. But there is a wide variety of reasons why this makes not the sense it should. I draw the Senate's attention to a study produced by the Pentagon last year that was signed by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that demonstrated what we already knew: Even when mobilized, Reserve component units are far less expensive than their peer units in the Active component.

It has always been a foregone conclusion that the Air National Guard costs are far less than Active component costs when they are on base or in garrison. Personnel are not drawing the salaries their peer units are and so on. But the Pentagon report showed something more interesting. It showed the Guard and Reserve save taxpayers dollars even when mobilized. The Reserve component units are estimated to be about one-third as expensive as similar Active component units, and they can deploy nearly half as often. That adds up to lot of savings in dollars and cents, but it also reflects a very major component of our security, because in the wars we fought in the last decade, we could not have done it without these Guard and Reserve units.

I agree with my colleague on that, and that is why the bipartisan Guard Caucus will have some very strong statements.

We look at what the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, GEN Ron Fogelman, said before these plans were announced. He argued for a larger Reserve component and a smaller Active-Duty Force. He did a guest column in DefenseNews. He said, among other things:

The big question is, how does the department reduce its

budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready

defense when more than half of the budget is committed to

personnel costs?

The answer to that question is right before us: We should

return to our historic roots as a militia nation. So, what

does that mean, exactly? Simply put, it means we should

return to the constitutional construct for our military and

the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a

robust militia.

To do that, leaders must put old parochial norms aside and

be willing to actually shift forces and capabilities to the

National Guard and Reserve.

He said ``put old parochial norms aside.'' He goes on to say:

This would enable significant personnel reductions in the

active components. It would also result in a larger reserve

component. Most important, it would preserve capability and

equipment that has cost the American taxpayer trillions of

dollars, nest it in our mostly part-time Guard and Reserve,

and have it available should it be needed.

This concept worked well for our country for the better

part of two centuries. Unfortunately, several generations of

leaders have come and gone, and most of today's leadership

fails to recognize the true potential of the militia model.

We need our collective senior military and civilian leaders

to recognize there is a way back to a smaller active military

and a larger militia posture. The fiscal environment and

emerging threats demand it.

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a former Air Force Chief of Staff.

In fact, Senator Graham and I introduced a successful amendment in last year's Defense authorization bill that required the Pentagon and the GAO perform studies that should produce more conclusive analysis of the relative cost of similar units in the Active components and the Reserve components. We are also aware of at least two other third-party studies currently underway to address the questions. I think we are going to have three or four such studies that will conclusively answer the questions. Senator Graham and I--and I think most of our colleagues in the Senate--consider these proposed Air Force cuts to be dangerously premature. Once we cut the Reserve components, once we send an aircraft to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and these airmen and pilots go out to civilian life, we don't get them back. In fact, that is precisely why the Army and Marine Corps have taken a different approach of preserving their Reserve component force structure: They can mobilize Active component troops they place in the Reserve component. But once we cut that, they are gone forever. They are gone forever.

Madam President, clearly this approach, if we keep the Guard and Reserve, saves our country precious resources at a time we need to tighten our belts. There are a couple of things we agree on. Everybody in the Senate agrees that our military has to be kept strong and vigilant to threats from our enemies. But the source of our military strength has been and always will be our economic might. If we are to protect ourselves militarily while also marshaling our economic power, moving to the kind of constitutional defense model my colleague has discussed should be our first choice.

I think these Air Force proposals are ill-advised and premature at the very least. I think they are flat-out wrong, as has already been said here on the floor. When any of us who have visited the areas, especially in the last few years, where our military guard and our Reserves are deployed, you cannot tell the difference between their duties or the risks they put themselves in--between the active-duty and Guard and Reserve components. The National Guard has been given a much greater role in our overall national defense--more missions, greater responsibility, heavier burdens. They perform these missions superbly, with great skill and effectiveness. They have defended our interests, and many have lost their lives doing it, but they carried out the same missions as everybody else.

The Senate National Guard Caucus worked closely with all concerned to accommodate and facilitate these changes. But now we are going to take an active role in informing the Senate as these are being made. We are not going to sit by while any of the military services decimate their Reserve components. We will work together, Senator Graham and I, with the Senate Armed Services Committee on which he serves with distinction, and the Senate Appropriations Committee on which we are both privileged to serve, but also the entire membership of the Senate, to produce a thoughtful, well-conceived strategy for military manpower that makes use of a cost-effective and accessible, fully operational, trained, and ready Reserve component.

I thank my friend from South Carolina. We will from time to time report to the Senate on this issue. It is extremely important. It comes down to the bottom line: Have the best defense at the least cost to the taxpayer. That is what we are both aiming for.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Judge Cathy Bencivengo to fill a vacancy on the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, where she has served as a Magistrate Judge since 2005. An experienced judge and lawyer, with 17 years in private practice before becoming a Magistrate Judge, Judge Bencivengo received the highest possible rating from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, unanimously ``well qualified.'' Her nomination, which has the strong support of her home state Senators, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on October 6. Yet, despite the support of every Member of the Judiciary Committee, Democratic and Republican, and despite vacancies across the country in nearly one out of every 10 Federal judgeships, it has taken over 4

months for Senate Republicans to consent to a vote on Judge Bencivengo's nomination.

I thank the Majority Leader for securing today's vote. There is no reason or explanation why the Senate Republican leadership will not consent to vote on the other 18 judicial nominations waiting for final Senate action. All but three of them were reported by the Judiciary Committee without opposition, just like Judge Bencivengo's nomination.

Earlier this week I urged Senate Republicans to join with Democrats and take long overdue steps to remedy the serious vacancies crisis on Federal courts throughout the country. Consenting to vote on a single judicial nomination, only the third such vote we have had this year, is not much in the way of progress.

There is no reason or explanation for why Senate Republicans continue to block a vote on the nomination of Jesse Furman to fill a vacancy on the Southern District of New York. His nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on September 15, nearly 5 months ago, without opposition from a single member of the Committee and a month before the nomination being considered today. Mr. Furman, an experienced Federal prosecutor who served as Counselor to Attorney General Michael Mukasey for 2 years during the Bush administration, is a nominee with an impressive background and bipartisan support. We should have voted on his nomination many months ago, and certainly before the end of the last session. Senate Republicans have now skipped over that nomination and stalled it for almost 5 months.

Senate Republicans continue to block even judicial nominations with home State support from Republican Senators. Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida both introduced Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Judiciary Committee when we held his confirmation hearing last September for his nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit, and both strongly support his nomination.

Judge Jordan is an experienced jurist who has served as a judge for the Southern District of Florida since 1999. If confirmed, Judge Jordan will be the first Cuban-born judge to serve on the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia and Alabama. Born in Havana, Cuba, Judge Jordan immigrated to the United States at age 6, going on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Miami law school. After law school, he clerked for Judge Thomas A. Clark on the Eleventh Circuit, the court to which he is now nominationed, and for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a President Reagan appointee to the United States Supreme Court. Judge Jordan has been a prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida, serving as Deputy Chief and then Chief of the Appellate Division. Judge Jordan has been a professor, since 1990 teaching at his alma mater, the University of Miami School of Law, as well as the Florida International University College of Law. It is no suprrise that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Jordan ``well qualified'' to serve on the Eleventh Circuit, the highest possible rating from its non-partisan peer review. It is also no surprise that his nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee nearly 4 months ago. The surprise is that Senate Republicans continue to stall action on this nomination for no good reason.

Judge Jordan is the kind of consensus judicial nominee that should be welcomed as one of the many examples of President Obama reaching out to work with Republican and Democratic home State senators and the kind of superbly qualified nominee we should all encourage to serve on the distinguished bench of Federal appeals court judges. In the past the Senate would have voted on his nomination within days or weeks of its being reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Yet Republicans refused to consent to a vote on Judge Jordan's nomination before the end of the last session and it has been stalled on the Senate Calenadar for nearly 4 months. When we finally do vote on Judge Jordan's nomination I am certain he will be confirmed with broad bipartisan support, perhaps unanimously. There is no good reason the Senate is not voting to confirm Judge Jordan today.

If caseloads were really a concern of Republican Senators, as they contended when they filibustered the nomination last December of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit, they would not continue to block us from voting on Judge Jordan's nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit, one of the busier circuits in the country. They would not continue to block a vote on the nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, reported last December to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, the busiest Federal appeals court in the country. They would consent to vote on the nomination of Paul Watford, a well-qualified nominee to fill another judicial emeregency on the Ninth Circuit. They would stop blocking us from voting on the nominations of David Nuffer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District of Utah, Michael Fitzgerald to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Central District of California, Miranda Du to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District of Nevada, Gregg Costa to fill a judicial emeregency vacancy on the Southern District of Texas, and David Guaderrama to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Western District of Texas.

Of the 19 judicial nominations now awaiting a final vote by the Senate, 16 were reported by the Judiciary Committee with the support of every Senator on the Committee, Democratic and Republican. Month after month and year after year, Senate Republicans find excuses to delay confirmation of consensus judicial nominees for no good reason. These delays are a disservice to the American people. They prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. And they are damaging to the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

The cost of this across-the-board Republican obstruction is borne by the American people. More than half of all Americans, nearly 160 million, live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations that have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee. It is wrong to delay votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominees. The Senate should fill these numerous, extended judicial vacancies, not delay final action for no good reason.

By nearly any measure we are well behind where we should be. Three years into President Obama's first term, the Senate has confirmed a lower percentage of President Obama's judicial nominees than those of any President in the last 35 years. The Senate has confirmed just over 70 percent of President Obama's circuit and district nominees, with more than one in four not confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees who were confirmed, nearly nine out of every 10 nominees he sent to the Senate.

We remain well behind the pace set by the Senate during President Bush's first term. By this date in President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 170 Federal circuit and district court nominations on the way to 205, and had lowered judicial vacancies to 46. By the time Americans went to the polls in November 2004, we had reduced vacancies to 28 nationwide, the lowest level in the last 20 years. In contrast, the Senate has confirmed only 125 of President Obama's district and circuit nominees, and judicial vacancies remain over 85. The vacancy rate is double what it was at this point in the Bush administration.

I, again, urge Senate Republicans to abandon their obstructionist tactics and do as Senate Democrats did when we worked to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in 17 months. I urge them to work to reduce judicial vacancies as we did by considering and confirming President Bush's judicial nominations late into the Presidential election years of 2004 and 2008, reducing the vacancy rates in those years to their lowest levels in decades. That is the only way we have a chance to make up some of the ground we have lost and to address the serious and extended crisis in judicial vacancies.

I congratulate Judge Bencivengo on her confirmation today and hope that

we can soon take up the rest of the 18 judicial nominations still awaiting a Senate vote.

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