Floor Statements

Mr. President, Vermont benefits both by the people who were born there and those who come to Vermont and make us even better.

One of those people who has chosen Vermont is Barrie Dunsmore, who before his change in careers had been one of the foremost reporters and commentators on the national news scene. When he and his wife, Whitney Taylor, and his daughter, Campbell, came to Vermont, we Vermonters have benefitted by his columns in The Rutland Herald and his commentary on Vermont Public Radio. Recently Barrie took a number of his columns and collected them in a book, ``There and Back.'' I could not begin to do his writings justice, but my wife Marcelle

and I were privileged to be at a reception for Barrie and Whitney in Burlington and we heard him speak. I asked him if I could have a copy of his notes from that evening, and he shared them with me. The notes offer only a hint of what awaits in the book, which I read with pleasure at our home in Vermont.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Barrie Dunsmore's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Sanders and Gillibrand as we introduce this legislation to hold accountable those criminals who fraudulently sell what they call ``maple'' syrup.

Vermont iconic maple syrup--painstakingly produced, and prized across the Nation and beyond--is one of our state's fine, high-quality, natural products. I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all. This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont's economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters' hard work. I know that diligent syrup producers in Maine, New York, and other States have been similarly hurt by this crime. Our bill, the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement, or ``MAPLE''Act, will deter this criminal conduct.

The MAPLE Act creates a felony offense with a 5-year maximum penalty for fraudulently selling a product purported to be maple syrup that is not, in fact, maple syrup. Under current law, doing so is only a misdemeanor offense with a one year penalty.

The sale of fraudulent maple syrup is a real problem facing consumers and producers. Recently, Vermont U.S. Attorney Tris Coffin sought an indictment after a Food and Drug Administration investigation revealed that a Rhode Island man had been selling cane sugar-based syrup as ``maple'' syrup and representing to consumers that the syrup was authentic. The legislation we introduce today will more effectively protect consumers and the maple industry by punishing and deterring this deceptive conduct.

Vermonters, and consumers across the country, should be confident that when they buy food, they know exactly what they are getting. The fines that may result from criminal violations under current law are often not enough to protect the public from harmful or fraudulent products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business. We need to make sure that those who intentionally deceive consumers get a trip to jail, not a slap on the wrist. Schemers should not easily be able to sully the seal of quality that is associated with genuine Vermont maple syrup.

I have a longstanding commitment to comprehensive food safety and food integrity reforms, and our work is not done. Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed my Food Safety Accountability Act, which would hold those criminals who intentionally poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. I urge the House to pass that noncontroversial bill, and I hope that all Senators will join us in supporting the MAPLE Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Sanders and Gillibrand as we introduce this legislation to hold accountable those criminals who fraudulently sell what they call ``maple'' syrup.

Vermont iconic maple syrup--painstakingly produced, and prized across the Nation and beyond--is one of our state's fine, high-quality, natural products. I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all. This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont's economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters' hard work. I know that diligent syrup producers in Maine, New York, and other States have been similarly hurt by this crime. Our bill, the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement, or ``MAPLE''Act, will deter this criminal conduct.

The MAPLE Act creates a felony offense with a 5-year maximum penalty for fraudulently selling a product purported to be maple syrup that is not, in fact, maple syrup. Under current law, doing so is only a misdemeanor offense with a one year penalty.

The sale of fraudulent maple syrup is a real problem facing consumers and producers. Recently, Vermont U.S. Attorney Tris Coffin sought an indictment after a Food and Drug Administration investigation revealed that a Rhode Island man had been selling cane sugar-based syrup as ``maple'' syrup and representing to consumers that the syrup was authentic. The legislation we introduce today will more effectively protect consumers and the maple industry by punishing and deterring this deceptive conduct.

Vermonters, and consumers across the country, should be confident that when they buy food, they know exactly what they are getting. The fines that may result from criminal violations under current law are often not enough to protect the public from harmful or fraudulent products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business. We need to make sure that those who intentionally deceive consumers get a trip to jail, not a slap on the wrist. Schemers should not easily be able to sully the seal of quality that is associated with genuine Vermont maple syrup.

I have a longstanding commitment to comprehensive food safety and food integrity reforms, and our work is not done. Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed my Food Safety Accountability Act, which would hold those criminals who intentionally poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. I urge the House to pass that noncontroversial bill, and I hope that all Senators will join us in supporting the MAPLE Act.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will vote today on 3 of the 26 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and still awaiting a Senate vote. All three of these nominations, two to Federal district courts in Pennsylvania and one to the Southern District of Florida, were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee before the August recess. All three have the support of both Democratic and Republican home State Senators. Two of them are to fill judicial emergency vacancies. Senate Democrats were prepared to have votes on all three nominations 3 months ago when they were first reported to the Senate. I have heard no reason or explanation for why the Republican leadership refused until now to consent to votes on these nominations.

There is also no good reason or explanation for the Republican leadership's continued refusal to vote on the more than two dozen nominations stalled before the Senate. With Republican agreement, we could vote on all of them. Like the three nominations the Senate considers today, 21 of the other judicial nominations pending on the calendar and still being delayed were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. At a time when vacancies on Federal courts throughout the country remain near 90, with over 10 percent Federal judgeships vacant, the delays in considering and confirming these consensus judicial nominees is inexcusable.

The American people need functioning Federal courts with judges, not vacancies. In his recent letters to the Senate majority leader and Republican leader, Bill Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, highlighted the serious problems created by these excessive vacancies, writing:

Across the nation, federal courts with high caseloads and

longstanding or multiple vacancies have no choice but to

delay or temporarily suspend their civil dockets due to

Speedy Trial Act requirements. This deprives our federal

courts of the capacity to deliver timely justice in civil

matters and has real consequences for the financial well-

being of businesses and for individual litigants whose lives

are put on hold pending resolution of their disputes.

Mr. Robinson is not alone. We recently heard from Justice Scalia, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the extensive delays in the confirmation process are already having a chilling effect on the ability to attract talented nominees to the Federal bench. Chief Justice Roberts has also described the ``persistent problem of judicial vacancies in critically overworked districts.'' Justice Kennedy has spoken about the threat to the quality of American justice. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue affecting hardworking Americans who are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts.

Though it is within the Senate's power to take significant steps to address this problem, refusal by Senate Republicans to consent to voting even on consensus judicial nominations has kept judicial vacancies high for years. The number of judicial vacancies has been near or above 90 for well over 2 years. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that we are in the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. These needless delays do nothing to help solve this serious problem and are damaging to the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them.

More than half of all Americans--almost 170 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if the Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 25 States are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by these nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should explain why they will not consent to vote on the qualified consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.

Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of the 26 nominations on the Senate calendar was fully considered by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough but fair process, including completing our extensive questionnaire and questioning at a hearing. In fact, all the nominations reported by the committee have not only gone through vetting by the committee, but were vetted by the administration. The White House has worked with the home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each of the judicial nominees being delayed from a Senate vote is supported by both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background review of each nominee. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their professional qualifications. When the nominations are then reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason for months and months of further delay before they can start serving the American people.

Despite the damaging high vacancies that have persisted throughout President Obama's term, some Republican Senators have tried to excuse their delay in taking up nominations by suggesting that the Senate is doing better than we did during the first 3 years of President Bush's administration. It is true that President Obama is doing better in that he has worked more closely with home State Senators of both parties. As I have noted, all of the judicial nominees pending and being stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar have the support of both home State Senators in every case. That was not true of President Bush and led to many problems.

I have continued the practices I followed as chairman when President Bush was in office. In fact, when the Kansas Senators reversed themselves and opposed a judicial nominee that they had once approved, I honored their change of position and did not proceed to a vote in committee on that nominee.

But it is wrong to suggest that the Senate has achieved better results than we did in 2001 through 2003. As I have pointed out, in the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's Federal circuit and district court nominees. By contrast, after the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, the Senate was only allowed to proceed to confirm 60 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. Indeed, as 2010 was drawing to a close, Senate Republicans refused to proceed on 19 judicial nominees that had been considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee and forced them to be returned to the President. It has taken the Senate nearly twice as long to confirm the 100th Federal circuit and district court judge nominated by President Obama as we had when President Bush was in the White House.

During the third year of President Bush's administration, the Senate confirmed 68 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. Indeed, by mid-October 2003, 63 judges had been confirmed. In contrast, this year the Senate has yet to confirm 50 of President Obama's judicial nominees--despite the fact that 26 have been ready for final consideration and approval and remain stalled from confirmation by the Senate.

For those who contend percentages are significant, I note that the Washington Post reported this week that a lower percentage of President Obama's nominees have been confirmed than President Bush's, with only 68 percent of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees confirmed compared to 81 percent of President Bush's.

I think confirmations and vacancy numbers better reflect the reality in our Federal courts and for the American people. It is hard to see how the Senate is supposed to be doing better when it remains so far behind the pace we set in those years. During President Bush's first 4 years, the Senate confirmed a total of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we have almost 100 confirmations of President Obama's circuit and district court nominations to go in order to match that total during the next 12 months. At this juncture in President Bush's administration the Senate had confirmed 163 Federal circuit and district court judges, and the vacancy rate was down to 5 percent, with 46 vacancies. By contrast confirmations of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees total only 109, and judicial vacancies are now nearly twice as high with a vacancy rate of over 10 percent.

This is not the way to make real progress. No resort to percentages of nominees ``processed'' or ``positive action'' by the committee can excuse the lack of real progress by the Senate. In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more promptly, often within days of being reported to the full Senate. They were not forced to languish for months. The American people should not have to wait weeks and months for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

All three of the nominations the Senate will vote on today were reported unanimously by the committee in July. President Obama first nominated Robert Mariani in December 2010 to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Mariani has been a litigator in private practice for 35 years. For almost 20 years, he has managed his own law firm as a solo practitioner. Mr. Mariani has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, a Democrat and a Republican. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating.

Mark Hornak is nominated to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As with Mr. Mariani, both of Pennsylvania's Senators support Mr. Hornak's nomination, which received the highest possible rating from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, unanimously ``well qualified.'' Mr. Hornak has worked in private practice for 30 years in the Pittsburgh office of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, where he is a member of the firm's executive committee. He has served as a court-approved mediator and special master in the Western District of Pennsylvania, the district to which he is nominated. Following his law school graduation, he served as a law clerk to Judge James Sprouse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

We will also vote on the nomination of Judge Robert Scola to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. For the past 16 years, Judge Scola has served as a State judge in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. He has been reelected to that position three times. Judge Scola previously spent 9 years in private practice as a criminal defense attorney, and 6 years as a State prosecutor in Miami-Dade County. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Scola ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest rating. Judge Scola has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, a Democrat and a Republican. The Chief Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Federico Moreno, a President George H.W. Bush

appointee, wrote months ago to the Senate to urge the speedy confirmation of Judge Scola to address his court's overburdened schedule. I am glad we are finally able to consider his nomination today.

I hope that in the weeks ahead we can build on today's progress by considering more of the nearly two dozen well-qualified nominees still awaiting a Senate vote. This is an area where the Senate must come together to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for well over 2 years. We can and must do better for the nearly 170 million Americans being made to suffer by these unnecessary Senate delays.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak to amendment No. 753 to H.R. 2112 by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte. This amendment would tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement officers in their efforts to secure our national security.

I am surprised that this amendment is being offered at this time. Just a week ago, we learned of the foiled assassination attempt in the United States of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. This case involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the DEA in a coordinated effort to prevent an act of terrorism on U.S. soil. I commend the agencies involved in the investigation. I was also pleased to see that, in this instance, members of Congress did not re-engage in armchair quarterbacking over whether the suspect should be transferred to military custody or sent to Guantanamo.

Nearly two years ago, when a terrorist attempted to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, some politicians used the occasion to criticize the Attorney General after the suspect was arrested. They made all kinds of claims about the risks of trying him in a Federal court, none of which came true. In fact, after obtaining useful intelligence from the suspect, that case proceeded without incident in Federal court where, last Wednesday, the defendant pleaded guilty. He now faces a potential life sentence. That successful prosecution adds to the more than 440 terrorism-related convictions since September 11, 2001.

Over the last two and one half years, the President and his national security team have done a tremendous job protecting America and taking the fight to our enemies. Earlier this year, the President ordered a successful strike against Osama bin Laden and has stayed focused on destroying al Qaeda from his first days in office. Last month, the administration was also able to locate Anwar al Awlaki, a terrorist operative in Yemen who was recruiting Americans to attack within the United States. During the past two and one half years, the President and his national security team have developed a counterterrorism framework that has protected the American people while taking on al Qaeda and its affiliates. As the President's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan noted last month: ``[T]he results . . . under this approach are undeniable.'' Al Qaeda has been ``severely crippled'' and the death of Osama bin Laden was a ``strategic milestone'' in that effort.

We must remain vigilant, but no one can deny the progress that has been made. As Mr. Brennan emphasized, the approach is ``a practical, flexible, result-driven approach to counter terrorism that is consistent with our laws, and in line with the very values upon which this nation was founded.'' He noted: ``Where terrorists offer injustice, disorder, and destruction, the United States and its allies stand for freedom, fairness, equality, and hope.''

The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how to best handle terrorism suspects. Experts and judges from across the political spectrum have agreed that our courts and our criminal justice system can play a role in this challenge, and indeed has been effectively involved many times already.

As a former prosecutor, I have absolute faith in the abilities of our Federal courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement to bring terrorists to justice. The Executive Branch must have all options available in handling terrorism cases, including the ability to prosecute terrorists in Federal criminal courts.

I find it deeply troubling that the Senate would prohibit the administration from trying terrorists in our Federal courts. While there may be a place for military commissions in our overall approach to dealing with terrorism suspects, they remain mostly an unproven tool. The federal courts have dramatically more experience with handling these types of cases and have a proven track record of success.

There have been only six convictions in military commissions since September 11. Of the six convictions, five resulted from plea bargains. On average, the sentences given to those six defendants convicted in military commissions have been far shorter than the sentences handed down in Federal criminal courts. There have been more than 443 terrorism-related convictions in Federal courts since September 11, 2001, including at least 78 convictions during the Obama administration.

This amendment would deprive Federal law enforcement of a critical tool in bringing terrorists to justice. It usurps the Attorney General's constitutional responsibilities.

This body does not hold the responsibility of prosecuting any one. We are not the ones who go to court. We are not the ones who bring cases before a jury. The executive branch should make those choices, and it has done a very good job in winning convictions.

It would not be responsible for us to try to second-guess the system and tell a prosecutor what they should do in future cases. We would never do this to a State prosecutor. Why would we do this to our Federal prosecutors who are so well equipped to handle these cases?

We have spent over 200 years developing our criminal justice system, and we have spent over 200 years developing our courts and our Federal prosecution processes. No one should try to pass an amendment that will overturn that. This is not the path forward. I urge all Senators to oppose this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is not a good idea to legislate law enforcement tactics on an appropriations bill. To the extent the amendment by the Senator from Texas that has been modified with the help of the subcommittee chair restates Department of Justice policy, it is unneeded. To the extent it seeks to create a well-intentioned implementation of that policy, it does so in a way that may adversely affect FBI operations and other law enforcement efforts, including joint task forces among Federal, State, and local law enforcement, without really adding to what the Attorney General has already said and done to ensure that certain tactics from Operation Fast and Furious not be used again.

The Department of Justice's Inspector General's Office has not yet completed its independent investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, which was a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation in Phoenix that apparently followed on the practices used in Tucson during the Bush administration in Operation Wide Receiver. I expect to examine the inspector general's report through briefings, and possibly a hearing, when that investigation is concluded. It is important to remember that there are ongoing and highly sensitive criminal investigations involved here, and I do not think anyone wants to unduly hamper the efforts of law enforcement agents to stem the fight against violent drug cartels in Mexico.

I appreciate that the Senator from Texas, like all of us, is deeply concerned. When he wrote to me asking for a hearing about the southern border, I asked Senator Durbin, who then chaired the Crime Subcommittee, to work with him and accommodate his request. I certainly hope that congressional attention did not add to the pressure felt by law enforcement officers and agents to utilize aggressive and risky methods with inadequate resources.

Of course, we all mourn the loss of all of the agents who have died in the line of duty, including members of our Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have spoken previously about the loss of Jaime Zapata. This year we also mourn Hector Clark and Eduardo Rojas. Last year we lost five Department of Homeland Security, DHS, agents: Vincent Gallagher, John Zykas, Mark Van Doren, Floyd Collins, and, of course, Brian Terry. The year before that we lost another four agents: Nathaniel Afolayan, Cruz McGuire, Robert Rosas, Jr., and Trena McLaughlin.

Senator Cornyn has offered an amendment he describes as prohibiting funding for intentional ``gun walking'' programs. The Department of Justice already has a longstanding policy against the knowing transfer of firearms to criminals without proper monitoring or controls. I appreciate that the Senator from Texas, like all of us, is deeply concerned about law enforcement operations that could allow firearms to fall into the hands of violent criminals in Mexico.

I was concerned that the original text of his amendment would actually make it more difficult to investigate and prosecute gun traffickers. I am glad to see that Senator Cornyn has worked with Senator Mikulski to address some of my operational concerns with his amendment concerns that were also voiced by the Department of Justice. I am not sure that in the short time available to us that we have been able to rectify all of the unintended, collateral consequences this language might occasion, however. For example, I know the FBI has voiced serious operational concerns about the impact this amendment could have on their system of background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. I hope Senator Cornyn and others will continue to work with the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that whatever final language may be included in law does not unduly hamper the ability of law enforcement, including efforts against violent drug cartels in Mexico.

The Attorney General recently reiterated that longstanding Department of Justice policy already prohibits the transfer of firearms to known criminals without the proper monitoring or controls by law enforcement. Indeed, when Attorney General Holder testified about Operation Fast and Furious before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science in March, he stated that he had made it clear to the Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney's Offices and ATF agents nationwide, that ``letting guns walk is not something that is acceptable.'' I also understand that earlier this year, this policy was expressly reiterated to prosecutors and agents in the field through guidance issued by the Deputy Attorney General. Accordingly, this amendment attempts to legislate a policy that is already in effect.

I am also concerned that Senator Cornyn has offered this amendment without the benefit of all of the facts. As I have noted, there is an independent investigation by the Department of Justice inspector general that is ongoing. Moreover, there is an ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution related to the tragic murder of Agent Brian Terry. I am sure Senator Cornyn would agree that we should all ensure that the FBI and the prosecutors assigned to the case can continue that criminal investigation without any interference or impediment. Contrary to Senator Cornyn's statement, there has been no conclusive evidence indicating that either of these guns connected to Operation Fast and Furious were ``used'' to murder Agent Terry.

Although the revised text of Senator Cornyn's amendment has addressed some of my operational concerns, I remain concerned with language that purports to require U.S. law enforcement personnel to continuously monitor and control any firearms that may be transferred during an operation. I cannot believe that is what is really intended. Many law enforcement operations are joint operations through joint task forces with State and local law enforcement. I do not believe the Senator from Texas means to construct a rigid protocol of tactics for such operations. Given the potential for operational problems that might arise from a overly literal application of the language, I am left to wonder whether this language is intended to apply to joint operations at all, since it would not make sense on the ground.

Again, I appreciate the intent of Senator Cornyn's amendment, and as I have demonstrated, I share his concern with the violence, drugs, and illegal gun trafficking along our borders. The strategy and tactics being used to fight these problems need to be both smart and effective. At the same time, I am confident the Senator from Texas would agree with me that we must also continue to support and honor the efforts of the thousands of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who are working tirelessly to keep our border safe.

If the Senator will yield on that point, he is absolutely right. They were reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 21. They were cleared that day on the Democratic side. We were perfectly willing to bring them up and voice vote them that day or the next day or the day after. We were perfectly willing to have a vote in August before we went out. We were perfectly willing to have them voted on in September. We were perfectly willing to have them voted on early, in early October because of the Senator's support and Senator Casey's support. For some reason, that was not cleared on the Senator's side of the aisle. I will be happy to work with my friend from Pennsylvania--after all, we each have the same first name--and we will try to clear them. What the Senator said about them is absolutely true. These are the kind of judges--whether we have a Republican or Democratic President, they would be proud to have them on the bench, and I pledge to work with both Senators from Pennsylvania to get them through.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Cathy Bissoon to the Western District of Pennsylvania, one of 27 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate's Executive Calendar awaiting a vote. Like 24 of those 27 nominations, the nomination of Judge Bissoon was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, with every Republican and every Democrat voting in support. Judge Bissoon is supported by both of her home State Senators, Senator Casey, a Democrat, and Senator Toomey, a Republican. I am glad we are finally able to vote on this nomination nearly 3 months after it was reported. I have heard no reason or explanation from the Republican leadership for this delayed action.

There is no good reason or explanation for the Republican leadership's refusal to vote on the other two dozen consensus nominees stalled before the Senate, while a judicial vacancies crisis continues to affect the Federal courts and hurt the American people. These are all nominations that have gone through an extensive process. They were considered by the White House and vetted before the President nominated them. The White House has worked with the home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each is supported by both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background review. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their professional qualifications. The Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on each nominee, and each has responded to extensive questioning. When they are then reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason for months and months of further delay before they can start serving the American people.

With Republican agreement, we could vote not just on one district court nomination, but on all 27 of the nominations reported by the Committee. I trust that the Senate will be allowed to confirm additional judicial nominations this week, before the upcoming recess, so that we can begin to build on the agreement by the Senate leadership in September to finally have votes on long stalled judicial nominees. Votes on 4 to 6 nominations are what is required every week throughout the rest of this year if we are to bring down a judicial vacancy rate that remains at nearly 11 percent, with 90 vacancies on Federal courts around the country.

Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of the 27 nominations on the Senate calendar was fully considered by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough but fair process. We have worked hard to ensure that the Committee continues to makes progress on nominations. Our cooperation and work on the Committee makes the continuing extensive and unexplained delays in the Senate's consideration of judicial nominations even harder to understand.

These delays are damaging to the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that we are in the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. The number of judicial vacancies has been at or above 90 for well over 2 years. We must bring an end to these needless delays in the Senate so that our Federal courts can better serve the American people.

More than half of all Americans--almost 170 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if the Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 25 States are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by these nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should apologize to the American people or at least explain why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.

In recent letters to the Senate Majority Leader and Republican leader, ABA President Bill Robinson highlighted the problems created by these excessive vacancies on the Federal courts, writing:

Filling existing vacancies on the federal bench has become

a matter of increasing urgency. Across the nation, federal

courts with high caseloads and longstanding or multiple

vacancies have no choice but to delay or temporarily suspend

their civil dockets due to Speedy Trial Act requirements.

This deprives our federal courts of the capacity to deliver

timely justice in civil matters and has real consequences for

the financial well-being of businesses and for individual

litigants whose lives are put on hold pending resolution of

their disputes.

Nothing less than a sustained, concerted, and cooperative

effort will be sufficient to make discernible progress in

reducing the longstanding and dangerously high vacancy rate

on the federal courts. And, as important, nothing less will

assure litigants--businesses and aggrieved individuals

alike--that our federal courts have sufficient judges to hear

their cases in a timely and thorough fashion.

I ask unanimous consent that copies of Mr. Robinson's October 13 letters to the Senate leaders be included at the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Presiding OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Those of us serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee are making this kind of ``sustained, concerted, and cooperative effort.'' Regrettably, that effort is not duplicated by the Senate, because the Senate Republican leadership continues to object, stall and delay consideration of these much-needed judges.

This is not a partisan issue. Two weeks ago in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Scalia agreed that the extensive delays in the confirmation process are already having a chilling effect on the ability to attract talented nominees to the Federal bench. Chief Justice Roberts has also described the ``persistent problem of judicial vacancies in critically overworked districts.'' Hardworking Americans are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts. While people appearing in court are waiting years before a judge rules on their case, they feel they are being forced to live the old adage ``justice delayed is justice denied.''

I have heard Republican Senators come to the floor purporting to justify their delays by selectively pointing to past instances in which Democratic Senators opposed a handful of President Bush's most ideological nominations. Their misguided attempt to go ``tit for tat'' and settle a political score on nominations ignores the realities of the crisis in judicial vacancies created by their delays. They ignore the fact that President Obama's current nominees are not divisive, ideological picks, but consensus, qualified nominees who are being blocked across the board for no good reason.

Senate Republicans also ignore the actual record on nominations established by Senate Democrats in considering President Bush's nominations. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. In stark contrast, it has taken us twice as long--34 months--to confirm just over 100 of President Obama's judicial nominations. In President Bush's first term we confirmed a total of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we have almost 100 confirmations of President Obama's circuit and district court nominations to go in order to match that total during the next 12 months. Given the obstruction and delays during these first 3 years of President Obama's administration, we have a lot of ground to make up and

need to get started if the Senate is to be as productive as we were during President Bush's first term.

Democrats did not go ``tit for tat'' on nominations during President Bush's first years in office. Even though Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed to more than 110, we proceeded. As I have noted, we confirmed 100 in 17 months during President Bush's first 2 years. Now, however, Senate Republicans have not built on that progress and bipartisan cooperation but have returned, instead, to their practices of obstruction in order to hold judicial vacancies open, rather than confirm the nominations of a Democratic President. And as a result, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed, again. At this point in President Bush's first term we had confirmed 162 Federal circuit and district court judges, and the vacancy rate was down to 5 percent, with 46 vacancies. Vacancies are now twice as high with a vacancy rate of nearly 11 percent and vacancies again at 90, where they have been for well over 2 years.

This is not the way to make real progress. In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more promptly, often within days of being reported to the full Senate. They were not forced to languish for months. The American people should not have to wait weeks and months for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

There is no good reason for the Republican refusal to consent to votes on three circuit court nominations which were favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee many months ago. We should be able to have a debate and vote on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, the superbly qualified nominee to the ninth seat on the D.C. Circuit reported by the Judiciary Committee over seven months ago. She is a highly-respected appellate litigator who has excelled in private practice and public service, including 6 years as Solicitor General of the State of New York, and her nomination has the strong support of law enforcement and a number of prominent conservative lawyers. With a new vacancy on that court, it is now more than one-quarter vacant. Four of President Bush's D.C. Circuit nominees were confirmed to that Court, twice filling the tenth seat and once filling the eleventh seat. There is no reason we cannot now confirm President Obama's first D.C. Circuit nominee to fill the ninth seat.

There is also no reason for the Senate to have been required by Republican objection to have skipped the nominations of Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit and Christopher Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit. Each has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy and each was reported unanimously by the Committee three months ago and before the nomination being considered today. In fact the Senate has only been allowed to consider 5 circuit court nominations this entire Congress. This stands in sharp contrast to the 17 circuit court nominations in 17 months that we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002 and President Bush was in the White House.

The delays which have led to the damaging backlog in judicial nominations are compounded by attempts by Senate Republicans to use invented controversies to damage qualified nominees. The decision by the entire Republican caucus to vote against the nomination of Alison Nathan to the Southern District of New York last week reminded me of the shameful party line vote which defeated President Clinton's nominee of Justice Ronnie White of Missouri in 1999. Even though Alison Nathan's nomination had been reported in July with the support of half of the Republican members of the Committee, last week those Senators flipped their votes and all Republican Senators voted as a bloc against confirming her to the Federal bench. That was extraordinary. Fortunately, they did not prevail and Judge Nathan, an accomplished, impressive nominee, was confirmed. She deserved better treatment by Senate Republicans, not their party line opposition.

Today the Senate finally considers the nomination of Cathy Bissoon. She will make a superb addition to the Federal bench. She is already well-known on the court to which she is nominated, having served as a Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2008, when she became the first Hispanic woman appointed to that role. She also clerked for Judge Lancaster of the Western District following law school. Judge Bissoon worked in private practice for 14 years at Cohen & Grigsby and Reed Smith in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Both of Pennsylvania's Senators support her nomination. Senator Casey, in particular, has worked very hard to help us get to this day. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Bissoon's nomination without dissent in July. When confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic woman to serve the Western District of Pennsylvania as a Federal judge.

I hope we can consider additional judicial nominations this week to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for over 2 years. We can and must do better for the nearly 170 million Americans being made to suffer by these unnecessary Senate delays.

Exhibit 1

American Bar Association,

Chicago, IL, October 13. 2011.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Republican Leader McConnell: I am writing on behalf of

the American Bar Association to commend you on the

confirmation of ten judges during the past two weeks. Your

agreement with Senator McConnell allowed a higher number of

judges to be confirmed than in any prior month this Congress.

Moreover, your scheduling of the first six nomination votes

on the same day was a welcome departure from the general

pattern observed this Congress of considering only one or two

nominees at a time. We strongly encourage you to continue to

schedule same-day votes on multiple nominees throughout the

rest of the session. Nothing less than a sustained,

concerted, and cooperative effort will be sufficient to make

discernible progress in reducing the longstanding and

dangerously high vacancy rate on the federal courts. And, as

important, nothing less will assure litigants--businesses and

aggrieved individuals alike--that our federal courts have

sufficient judges to hear their cases in a timely and

thorough fashion.

Filling existing vacancies on the federal bench has become

a matter of increasing urgency. Across the nation, federal

courts with high caseloads and longstanding or multiple

vacancies have no choice but to delay or temporarily suspend

their civil dockets due to Speedy Trial Act requirements.

This deprives our federal courts of the capacity to deliver

timely justice in civil matters and has real consequences for

the financial well-being of businesses and for individual

litigants whose lives are put on hold pending resolution of

their disputes.

The effect of the recent confirmations on the overall

vacancy rate amply attests to the need for continued

bipartisan action to achieve progress. On September 7, the

day after the Senate's first confirmation vote since its

return from the August recess, there were 91 vacancies on the

federal bench. Despite the recent confirmation of ten judges,

there are 92 vacancies on the bench today because of recent

retirements and a death. Regrettably, this outcome is not an

aberration or product of selective statistical reporting;

even though the Senate has confirmed from one to seven judges

every month this Congress, the vacancy rate continues to

hover around 10 percent--right where it has been for the past

24 months.

However, if the Senate were to confirm by the end of this

month the 29 nominees currently pending on the floor who were

reported from the Judiciary Committee by bipartisan voice

vote, the vacancy rate would drop to approximately seven

percent, absent unanticipated events. That would be a real

accomplishment.

We urge you to build on your recent success by continuing

to reach agreements to schedule multiple nominees for votes

on the same day at regular intervals throughout the remainder

of this session. Given the long-term backlogs, it is

important that confirmations outpace attrition and that the

Senate has the opportunity to achieve significant success in

reducing the vacancy rate and providing the federal judiciary

with the judges it needs to evaluate each case on its merits

and dispense timely justice to all.

Sincerely,

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III,

President.

I see the senior Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. I will yield to him in a moment.

First, I ask consent that I speak briefly about the Transportation and Highway appropriation bill the Senate is going to next be debating.

I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Senator Murray, and the ranking member, Senator Collins, for all the assistance they provided to me on several issues that are important to Vermont, especially in the wake of Hurricane Irene's massive devastation a few weeks ago. I have talked on the floor many times about what happened in Vermont with Hurricane Irene.

I was born in Vermont. I have never seen anything like this. It reminds me of the story my grandparents told me of a flood in the early 20th century. We have seen roads, bridges, businesses, homes, farms all over the State wiped out, with repair estimates topping nearly $900 million.

My wife and I have gone all over the State. I have gone with the Governor, adjutant general, and others, seeing things that literally brought me to tears in our beautiful State. Getting hit like that, it is very clear, as I have talked to the people working, that everybody has pitched in. Whether they are from the town that got hit or the next town over that might not have been hit, everybody has pitched in.

It is clear in our little State of 660,000 people we are stretched to the limit. If we don't have adequate Federal disaster recovery aid, Vermont will not have the resources needed to rebuild the lifelines destroyed--the homes, roads, and businesses represented in the daily lives of so many Vermonters and their communities.

Several Federal disaster programs are woefully underfunded. The highway administration emergency relief fund has less than $140 million in reserves. It has a backlog of more than $2 billion to repair projects from previous disasters, including $700 million from Vermont. HUD had no funding available to provide Community Development Block Grant funding to help our State rebuild. So I pushed hard for the $1.9 billion in emergency highway funding and for the vital State waivers that allow States to access the crucial repair work they need without overly restrictive cost sharing. I talked to the Governor, Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, other State and municipal officials about Vermont's rebuilding needs.

The Governor was down here last week. We sat in my office to talk about the rebuilding needs. These waivers are always at the top of the priority list or our State is going to be devastated.

There are also in this bill provisions that will permanently shift trucks from overburdened State secondary roads, some of which are now dirt roads because of the flooding. They wind through many downtowns across our State's interstate highways. This will especially help Vermont businesses and communities that are struggling most from the large number of State and local roads heavily damaged by Irene. I was glad to work with Senator Collins to include the Vermont provision and any similar provision for Maine. Again, bipartisan cooperation has succeeded.

We included $400 million in emergency CDBG funding. It is a critical downpayment to address housing needs of those hurt by Irene and the flooding this past spring. We have to do this right away. It will be snowing in Vermont in a matter of weeks. Today is a beautiful day. I have been there long enough to know, if you don't like the weather, wait a minute, it will change. We have to get people back in their homes. Vermonters are working hard to make the necessary funding, but we need this. We need this help.

As a Vermonter said to me: Senator, it appears we can spend unlimited amounts of money to rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they just blow them up. Can't we find even a small portion of that money to rebuild roads and bridges and homes in America by Americans for Americans? And Americans will protect them.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield to him.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Excellency Lee Myung-bak, President of the Republic of Korea, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting at 4 p.m., Thursday, October 13, 2011.

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB. This law, enacted in 1976, is a vital safety net for our first responders who are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and for the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice while serving their fellow citizens.

This legislation, along with several technical refinements to the program, will add certain classes of first responders who, due to gaps in the law, have been left without protection. For example, the bill contains legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress in response to the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical responder in Vermont. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act would protect Mr. Long's survivors and those who may follow and encounter the same limitations under the current law.

Under current PSOB law, in order to be eligible for benefits, a member of an ambulance crew must work for an organization that is deemed a unit of State or local government, and thus be deemed a public employee. In Dale Long's case, as with rescue crews across the country, he worked for a private, non-profit entity that nonetheless served his community in a way indistinguishable from an organization with status as a unit of government. Based upon this distinction, Dale Long's surviving family was ineligible for these benefits. This is unfair, and undermines the Federal policy that is in place to support and protect these men and women. The bill I introduce today would end this disparate treatment.

The legislation also includes a provision to ensure that a cadet officer killed during a dangerous training exercise would be eligible for such benefits. The current law's weakness in this

area was highlighted in a case in Maryland, during which fire cadet Racheal Wilson was killed during a training exercise. Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin have been very concerned about this situation, and I commend them for advocating for its inclusion in this legislation.

In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered and reported the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act by voice vote. Despite the Committee's work, and the process and debate it was afforded within the Committee, the bill was objected to when I tried to get Senate consideration. This was very disappointing, given the importance of this legislation to first responders around the country, and given the fact that the legislation was fully offset.

This year, I once again introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. During the Senate's debate in February on the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, I worked closely with Senator Inhofe to propose an amendment that included both the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act and a proposal from Senator Inhofe to support those who volunteer their time and expertise as airplane pilots to help those in need. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted by voice vote.

During the course of the subsequent conference negotiations on the FAA authorization legislation, I worked closely with Chairman Rockefeller and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to ensure that our bipartisan amendment was retained in the conference agreement. During the course of these negotiations, Chairman Smith proposed to expand the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act to include other changes to the current PSOB law.

For example, Chairman Smith proposed a refinement of the Hometown Heroes law, a law that I authored and which was enacted in 2003. I worked with firefighters, police officers, and first responders to make sure that what Chairman Smith had proposed would not only retain the spirit and intent of the original Hometown Heroes law, but, most importantly, would improve upon it to alleviate some of the administrative delays that the families of first responders had encountered in the past. This refined proposal is included in the bill.

The bill I introduce today also includes provisions to lessen the length of a currently unwieldy appeals process for claimants, clarify the list of eligible survivor beneficiaries, and make those who have been catastrophically injured eligible for peer support and counseling programs. It also removes artificial distinctions under the Hometown Heroes Act to expand the types of injuries that would make a public safety officer's survivors eligible for benefits.

The final version of the legislation to which Chairman Smith and I agreed represents a bipartisan compromise on the overall improvement of this important program. I appreciate Chairman Smith's willingness to work with me in support of this program, and the first responders for whom the law is intended to protect. I understand that our agreement was to be incorporated in the FAA conference report.

Unfortunately, the future for a conference agreement on the FAA legislation is unclear. Each day that passes is another day that Mr. Long's family, and others who would benefit from this legislation, must live without the assistance this benefit provides. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act has been in effect for over 30 years, and has brought a measure of security to survivors of fallen first responders. In 1990, Congress continued this tradition and acted again to ensure that those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty are taken care of. This longstanding policy is reflective of Congress' recognition of the importance and necessity of the men and women who commit themselves as firefighters, police officers, and medical responders.

It is difficult to imagine what communities across America would be like without these essential services. From the firefighters in Vermont who race to the scene of a rural fire during a cold winter night, to the ambulance crews providing emergency medical services following a natural disaster in Oklahoma, our dedicated first responders are all connected by their sense of duty and their selflessness in the service of their neighbors. In Congress, lawmakers have traditionally acted in support of these men and women irrespective of party and we should continue that great tradition. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this important bill.

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

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB. This law, enacted in 1976, is a vital safety net for our first responders who are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and for the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice while serving their fellow citizens.

This legislation, along with several technical refinements to the program, will add certain classes of first responders who, due to gaps in the law, have been left without protection. For example, the bill contains legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress in response to the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical responder in Vermont. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act would protect Mr. Long's survivors and those who may follow and encounter the same limitations under the current law.

Under current PSOB law, in order to be eligible for benefits, a member of an ambulance crew must work for an organization that is deemed a unit of State or local government, and thus be deemed a public employee. In Dale Long's case, as with rescue crews across the country, he worked for a private, non-profit entity that nonetheless served his community in a way indistinguishable from an organization with status as a unit of government. Based upon this distinction, Dale Long's surviving family was ineligible for these benefits. This is unfair, and undermines the Federal policy that is in place to support and protect these men and women. The bill I introduce today would end this disparate treatment.

The legislation also includes a provision to ensure that a cadet officer killed during a dangerous training exercise would be eligible for such benefits. The current law's weakness in this

area was highlighted in a case in Maryland, during which fire cadet Racheal Wilson was killed during a training exercise. Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin have been very concerned about this situation, and I commend them for advocating for its inclusion in this legislation.

In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered and reported the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act by voice vote. Despite the Committee's work, and the process and debate it was afforded within the Committee, the bill was objected to when I tried to get Senate consideration. This was very disappointing, given the importance of this legislation to first responders around the country, and given the fact that the legislation was fully offset.

This year, I once again introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. During the Senate's debate in February on the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, I worked closely with Senator Inhofe to propose an amendment that included both the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act and a proposal from Senator Inhofe to support those who volunteer their time and expertise as airplane pilots to help those in need. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted by voice vote.

During the course of the subsequent conference negotiations on the FAA authorization legislation, I worked closely with Chairman Rockefeller and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to ensure that our bipartisan amendment was retained in the conference agreement. During the course of these negotiations, Chairman Smith proposed to expand the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act to include other changes to the current PSOB law.

For example, Chairman Smith proposed a refinement of the Hometown Heroes law, a law that I authored and which was enacted in 2003. I worked with firefighters, police officers, and first responders to make sure that what Chairman Smith had proposed would not only retain the spirit and intent of the original Hometown Heroes law, but, most importantly, would improve upon it to alleviate some of the administrative delays that the families of first responders had encountered in the past. This refined proposal is included in the bill.

The bill I introduce today also includes provisions to lessen the length of a currently unwieldy appeals process for claimants, clarify the list of eligible survivor beneficiaries, and make those who have been catastrophically injured eligible for peer support and counseling programs. It also removes artificial distinctions under the Hometown Heroes Act to expand the types of injuries that would make a public safety officer's survivors eligible for benefits.

The final version of the legislation to which Chairman Smith and I agreed represents a bipartisan compromise on the overall improvement of this important program. I appreciate Chairman Smith's willingness to work with me in support of this program, and the first responders for whom the law is intended to protect. I understand that our agreement was to be incorporated in the FAA conference report.

Unfortunately, the future for a conference agreement on the FAA legislation is unclear. Each day that passes is another day that Mr. Long's family, and others who would benefit from this legislation, must live without the assistance this benefit provides. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act has been in effect for over 30 years, and has brought a measure of security to survivors of fallen first responders. In 1990, Congress continued this tradition and acted again to ensure that those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty are taken care of. This longstanding policy is reflective of Congress' recognition of the importance and necessity of the men and women who commit themselves as firefighters, police officers, and medical responders.

It is difficult to imagine what communities across America would be like without these essential services. From the firefighters in Vermont who race to the scene of a rural fire during a cold winter night, to the ambulance crews providing emergency medical services following a natural disaster in Oklahoma, our dedicated first responders are all connected by their sense of duty and their selflessness in the service of their neighbors. In Congress, lawmakers have traditionally acted in support of these men and women irrespective of party and we should continue that great tradition. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this important bill.

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

Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate has the opportunity to proceed to the American Jobs Act. The bill the President asked us to pass a month ago includes bipartisan proposals that have received broad approval in the past from Members of both parties, including road and bridge repairs, teacher retentions and extensions of tax relief for businesses to encourage hiring. We should answer the President's call and the American people's needs and act to help get Americans back to work and grow the economy.

There is another unacceptable rate that we can help change to the benefit of all Americans. That is the judicial vacancy rate. It now stands at nearly 11 percent, with 92 vacancies on Federal courts around the country. I will ask to have printed in the Record an editorial on this topic entitled ``The Other Federal Crisis'' that appeared in McClatchy--Tribune papers last week.

We can act today to bring down that rate dramatically by considering and confirming 26 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that are awaiting final Senate action.

Today we are voting on only one of those judicial 26 nominees. With Republican agreement, all 26 could have been voted on today. Of the 25 judges who will remain on the Executive Calendar after today's vote, 21 were reported with the unanimous support of all Democrats and all Republicans serving on the Judiciary Committee. All of them have the support of their home State Senators, 10 include Republicans home State Senators.

Today, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Jane Triche- Milazzo to serve as a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. While I am pleased that we are finally having a vote on Judge Triche-Milazzo's nomination, after 3 months of unnecessary delay, more than two dozen well-qualified, consensus nominees still await a Senate confirmation vote. At a time when vacancies on Federal courts throughout the country have remained near or above 90 for more than 2 years, delaying votes on these nominees needlessly undermines the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

The Senate could take significant steps today to address this ongoing crisis in judicial vacancies just by acting on the nominations thoroughly vetted by the Judiciary Committee and reported with bipartisan support. This week, with Republican cooperation, the Judiciary Committee could report five more consensus nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the Eleventh Circuit and in Utah, as well as vacancies in Missouri, Nebraska, and Washington. I have repeatedly noted Senator Grassley's willingness to work with me to make sure that the Judiciary Committee makes progress on nominations. Regrettably, the Judiciary Committee's efforts to act on nominations have not been matched by action by the Senate, where the Republican leadership has refused promptly to consider even consensus nominations. They are delayed for months. The Republican leadership's refusal to promptly schedule votes on pending judicial nominations is a departure from the Senate's action in regularly considering President Bush's nominations, which we did whether the Senate had a Democratic or Republican majority. At this point in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 162 of his nominees for the Federal circuit and district courts, including 100 during the 17 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during his first term. By this date in President Clinton's first term, the Senate had confirmed 163 of his nominations to circuit and district courts. In stark contrast, after today's vote, the Senate will have confirmed only 105 of President Obama's nominees to Federal circuit and district courts. In the next year, we need to confirm 100 more of his circuit and district court nominations to match the 205 confirmed during President Bush's first term.

We can and must do better to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis affecting Federal courts around the

country. Nearly half of all Americans--136 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if the Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations currently pending on the Executive Calendar. As many as 21 states are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by nominations stalled on the Senate calendar. Millions of Americans across the country are being harmed by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should explain to the American people why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.

The unnecessary delays in our consideration of judicial nominations have contributed to the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. The number of judicial vacancies rose above 90 in August 2009, and it has stayed near or above that level ever since. Vacancies are twice as high as they were at this point in President Bush's first term when the Senate was expeditiously voting on consensus judicial nominations. We must bring an end to these needless delays in the Senate so that we can ease the burden on our Federal courts so that they can better serve the American people.

Last week, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps, who was nominated to fill the emergency judicial vacancy created by the tragic death of Judge Roll in the Tucson, AZ, shootings. I was pleased that, with cooperation from Republican Senators, the time from when the Judiciary Committee reported Judge Zipps' nomination to full Senate consideration was less than a month even including a recess period. All nominations should move at that rate. It should not take a tragedy to spur us to action to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. Indeed, the time it took the Senate to consider Judge Zipps' nomination was in line with the average time it took for the Senate to consider President Bush's unanimously reported judicial nominations, 28 days. Her nomination would not have been an exception during those years as it regrettably has become today. President Obama's consensus nominations, reported with the unanimous support of every Republican and Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, have waited an average of 79 days on the Executive Calendar before consideration by the Senate. Today's nominee is a good example. She was reported unanimously on July 14. That was nearly 3 months ago.

Last week, I invited Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer to appear before the Judiciary Committee and discuss the important role that judges play under our Constitution. Justice Scalia agreed that the extensive delays in the confirmation process are already having a chilling effect on the ability to attract talented nominees to the Federal bench. Chief Justice Roberts has also described the ``persistent problem of judicial vacancies in critically overworked districts.'' Hardworking Americans are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts. While people appearing in court are waiting years before a judge rules on their case, they feel they are being forced to live the old adage ``justice delayed is justice denied.''

Today the Senate will confirm an experienced, consensus nominee who could and should have received a vote prior to the August recess. Jane Triche-Milazzo is nominated to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Currently a Louisiana State court judge, she previously spent 16 years in private practice in her family's law firm in Napoleonville, LA. Judge Triche-Milazzo has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator David Vitter. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination without a single dissenting vote almost 3 months ago. I expect that the Senate will confirm her unanimously today.

We must do more to make progress in considering the other 25 judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The excessive number of vacancies has persisted in Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long. The American people should not have to wait for the Senate to do its constitutional duty of confirming judges to the Federal bench. With millions of Americans currently affected by the vacancy crisis in our courts, there is serious work to be done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial to which I referred.

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

Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I pose this question, and as I look around this floor, with the exception of Senator Inouye, my dear friend from Hawaii, nobody has served in this body longer than I have--on the current membership--nobody. I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. Most votes you win by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, 60 votes--this is some new invention, I tell my friends, based on my sense of history.

So my question to the majority leader, whether we were here with a Democratic majority or a Republican majority, does he remember a time when judges who were confirmed unanimously--every single Republican, every single Democrat voting for them out of committee--would then sit on the calendar for 3, 4, 5, sometimes 6 months because there was not an agreement to vote on them without a 60-vote supermajority? I cannot remember it at any time in 37 years. I do not know if the majority leader can recall such a time.