Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me speak a little bit about Mark Hatfield, because those of us who knew Mark thought the world of him. I had an opportunity to know him and to serve with him, and for 23 years I served with him in the Senate.

I rise to pay tribute to Mark as a dedicated public servant and a respected lawmaker, a man whom I liked to call my friend, and I think virtually everybody serving during that time, Republican and Democrat alike, considered him a friend.

He dedicated nearly his entire life to public service. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He took part in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He taught political science in Oregon at Willamette College for 7 years. He served in the Oregon State legislature. He served two terms as Governor. I remember him smiling when somebody would see him in the corridors and call him Governor. He became Oregon's longest serving Senator. He served five terms in the Senate.

Unfortunately, Mark was one of a dying breed in politics today. He was an old-fashioned Senator and a political moderate. He came from a brand of Senators that included names such as Bob Stafford and George Aiken, both from Vermont. Oregon, like my State, prizes independence in their elected officials, and he was certainly never afraid to buck his party. From his opposition to the war in Vietnam to his early support for the Endangered Species Act and federally protected wilderness, Mark showed us all that he was ruled only by the people of Oregon and his conscience.

A true compassion for people drove many of Mark's decisions. After being one of the first American servicemen to see the destruction and carnage of Hiroshima following the atomic bombing, he later declared his leadership in the campaign to pass the 1987 nuclear weapons test ban, one of his major accomplishments.

Having a father with Alzheimer's disease and other family members with cancer, Mark became one of the strongest Senate advocates of Federal spending on medical research. He also supported prohibiting the sale of arms to undemocratic countries and countries that did not respect human rights.

Spending 8 years as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mark Hatfield did an amazing amount of good for his State of Oregon. In fact, it is hard to travel in the State of Oregon without seeing the differences he made.

Senator Hatfield was always known for his courteousness. Despite his independent streak, he had complete respect on both sides of the aisle. More than once I was there, and my two colleagues from Oregon on the floor know this, when people would come up to him and call him ``Saint Mark.''

It is important to remember that despite the squabbling that goes on in Washington these days, there are politicians who care deeply about the well-being of their colleagues in their State.

On a personal note, when I came to the Senate, I was No. 99 in seniority. Actually, there were only 99 of us in the Senate because there had been a tied race in New Hampshire. So I was the junior most Senator, sitting way over in the corner seat. Several of the more senior Senators reminded me how junior I was. I received a handwritten note, which I still have, from a Senator who wrote: When I came to the Senate, I was No. 99. But you move up. You move up quickly in seniority. He said: My door is always open to you. Let me know what I can do to help.

That Senator was Mark Hatfield. We became friends from that moment. I did go to him for advice. Marcelle and I traveled with him and Antoinette in numerous parts of the world. I can still remember the laughter on the plane. We would talk about everything--everything from children to politics, to sports, to whatever.

What a wonderful person. He was a public servant. He was a statesman. He was a friend. I consider myself fortunate to have known him, but especially to have served with him. This Senate was a better place with Mark Hatfield.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for debate only on H.R. 1249 be extended to 6:30 p.m. and that at 6:30 p.m. the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. President, I have worked on efforts to prevent the diversion of fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for years. When the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, took on the issue, I urged him to work with me, to withhold the amendment during the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the bill, and I would work with him to include improvements on the Senate floor.

I did. I kept my word. In fact, I included language he drafted in the managers' amendment and worked hard to pass it despite the misgivings of several Senators on both sides of the aisle.

However, when our bill went over to the House of Representatives, they preserved the principle against fee diversion but changed the language. The language of the bill is that which the House devised and voted to include as worked out by the House Republican leadership to satisfy House rules. The provisions Senator Coburn had drafted--and I understand may offer with his amendment--apparently violate House rule 21, which prohibits authorizing legislation from converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending. So instead of a revolving fund, the House established a reserve fund.

The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, continues to make important improvements to ensure that fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are used for USPTO activities. That office is entirely fee-funded and does not rely upon taxpayer dollars, but it has been and continues to be subject to annual appropriations bills. That allows Congress greater opportunity for oversight.

The legislation that passed the Senate in March would have taken the Patent and Trademark Office out of the appropriations process by setting

up a revolving fund that allowed the PTO to spend all money it collects without appropriations legislation or congressional oversight. But instead of a revolving fund the House formulation against fee diversion establishes a separate account for the funds and directs they be used for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The House forged a compromise with its appropriators to reduce any incentive to divert fees from the PTO and to provide the PTO with access to all fees that it collects while keeping the PTO within the normal appropriations process with the oversight that process includes. The America Invents Act thus creates a new Patent and Trademark fee reserve fund into which all fees collected by PTO in excess of that amount appropriated in a fiscal year are to be deposited. Fees in the reserve fund may only be used for operations of the PTO. In effect, they are doing what we have asked but staying within the House rules.

In fact, in addition, the House appropriators agreed to carry language in their appropriations bills that would guarantee that fees collected by the PTO in excess of the appropriated amounts would remain available to the PTO until expended and could be accessed by the PTO through reprogramming procedures without the need for subsequent legislation.

This may sound kind of convoluted, but what a number of people, including Senator Coburn, wanted to do was to make sure the fees went to PTO. I happen to agree with that. What the House did has the effect of making sure the fees go to the PTO.

What I hope we not do now is try to offer amendments that may change that and in effect kill the bill. Through the creation of the reserve fund, as well as the commitment by House appropriators, H.R. 1249 makes important improvements in ensuring that user fees collected by the PTO for services are used by the PTO for those services.

So while I oppose fee diversion, I also oppose the Coburn amendment, and I will tell you why. After 6 years of work getting this bill here, this may kill the bill over a formality: the difference between a revolving fund and a reserve fund. One would be hard-pressed to know what the difference is except it would kill the bill. It would require the House to consider the whole bill again. They spent days and weeks in heavy debate working out their compromise in good faith. It was worked out by the House Republican leadership. There is no reason to think that having done that, they are going to reconsider and allow the original Coburn language to violate the rules and avoid oversight.

In fact, I ask that a letter from Congressmen Rogers and Ryan to Chairman Smith be printed in the Record.

I know the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I know them. I trust Senator Inouye, someone awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery and valor in World War II. I trust the senior Senator from Mississippi and the senior Senator from Alabama with whom I have served for many years. They will follow the law. They will abide by the Supreme Court. I was disturbed to read a comment that this amendment is being brought forward out of distrust of these Senators. These are Senators I have served with for decades. They can and should be trusted. We should not kill this bill over this amendment. Instead, we should reject the amendment and pass the bill.

(Mr. BENNET assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2011, at 10 a.m.

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 September 7, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Defending the Nation Since 9/11: Successful Reforms and Challenges Ahead at the Department of Homeland Security.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cybercrime: Updating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to Protect Cyberspace and Combat Emerging Threats.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, I would tell my good friend from Iowa how touched I was when I received his e-mail saying how the people of Iowa have stood with the people of Vermont, as we did with the people of Iowa when they faced a disaster. When I received the e-mail, the Governor of our State, Governor Shumlin, and I and the head of our Vermont National Guard, General Dubie, had just helicoptered into one of our prettiest towns, but it was totally cut off. The only way we could reach it was by helicopter. I saw people working together. Nobody knew whether they were Republicans or Democrats or cared. They were all working together to help each other.

I will tell my friend from Iowa, I took the liberty of showing his very meaningful, very heartfelt e-mail--similar, also, to ones I got from other Senators--and I thought how much that meant. If I might address the Senator from Iowa directly, I will tell you, the people of Vermont appreciate it because I know how heartfelt it was. It meant a great deal.

Mr. President, we are on the question of the flooding in Vermont. I was born in Vermont. I have lived there all of my life. We live on a dirt road in a small town, Middlesex, up about 1,000 feet, in an 1850s farmhouse. It means a lot to us. It is a place my wife Marcelle and I spent part of our honeymoon 49 years ago. But I saw something I had never seen before in Vermont. Ten days ago, Vermont bore the full brunt of then-Tropical

Storm Irene as it dumped more than 6 inches of rain across the State in just a few hours. You have to understand, in our small State--with the Green Mountains running down the spine of it, north to south--the narrow valleys of the Green Mountains, where towns, roads, and rivers are historically intertwined, were particularly hard hit as gentle rivers and streams became rushing torrents of destruction. Whole towns were cut off from the outside world for days. You would fly over, and you could see a town completely marooned--every road going into it, every bridge going into it gone. Homes, businesses, water systems, and miles of roads were swept away. Even worse, some Vermonters lost their lives in these devastating floods.

In our State, we have had an unprecedented wave of flooding this year. We had two spring events previously declared as major disasters. Vermonters have shouldered these great burdens. We have pulled together from all parts of the State, all walks of life. We are meeting this new crisis with the same courage, cooperation, and resilience we Vermonters have always shown.

I applaud the brave first responders--the police departments, the fire departments, the EMS, and others--the National Guard members who have worked around the clock. Our National Guard in Vermont has been joined by the National Guard from Illinois and Maine, and we have had offers from our other adjoining States. I also applaud the power crews and road crews. I remember how impressed I was looking down there from the helicopter and seeing this long line of power trucks coming down the road and knowing they are going to be working around the clock. I also applaud the many others who have helped in the recovery and rebuilding process--our local Red Cross and other service organizations.

But our small State--it is only 660,000 people--is stretched to the limit right now, and we need both immediate and ongoing assistance in recovering from these enormous setbacks. Winter is fast approaching. In Vermont, snow will be flying in a matter of weeks, certainly in a matter of a couple months. We must move quickly to secure our homes and businesses, restore our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our schools, and our medical facilities. With just weeks to accomplish so much, we need the full and immediate support of FEMA and so many of our Federal agencies.

I appreciate President Obama's swift approval of Governor Shumlin's request to declare most of Vermont a Federal disaster area--something all of us in the Vermont delegation joined him in. But I am greatly concerned FEMA may not have adequate resources to meet the immediate assistance needs of the Irene victims in Vermont and all the other States. We do not consider ourselves an island here. We know a whole lot of other States were badly hurt by Irene. FEMA has less than $600 million in its disaster account for the rest of fiscal year 2011. OMB said today that FEMA needs at least $1.5 billion for recovery assistance in States affected by Hurricane Irene.

We need to act quickly to find a solution to this pressing problem. I do not think any of us wants to get into a situation where we underfund FEMA at this critical juncture, and then have FEMA run out of resources next spring, just as rebuilding efforts get going on the East Coast.

Given the breadth and depth of Irene's destruction, on top of the ongoing disasters already declared in all 50 States, I am going to continue to work with the Democratic leader, the Republican leader, the Appropriations Committee, and all of my colleagues to ensure that FEMA has the resources they need to help all of our citizens at this time of disaster--not just in Vermont but in all of our States.

How much?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I was disappointed that before the August recess, the Senate was not allowed to take greater steps to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country. As we resume consideration of pending judicial nominations, there are 20 nominees fully considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee and ready for final Senate action. Of those, 16 were approved by the Judiciary Committee unanimously, without a single Republican or Democratic Senator in opposition.

The nomination of Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee is one such nomination. This is a nomination that has been waiting for Senate consideration, despite the support of her Republican home State Senators, since May 9. Nearly 4 months ago, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination without opposition. This is reminiscent of the nomination of Jane Stranch of Tennessee. She, too, had the support of her Republican home State Senators, but her confirmation was nonetheless stalled--inexplicably--by Senate Republicans. Judge Stranch was finally confirmed in September 2010, after an extended and unnecessary 10-month delay. These Tennessee nominations were the subject of a column by Professor Carl Tobias in early August, which I inserted in the Record on August 2. I, too, had hoped the Senate would be allowed to vote on this nomination last month. I am glad that we finally have agreement for a vote tonight.

At this point in the Presidency of George W. Bush, 144 Federal circuit and district court judges had been confirmed. On September 6 of the third year of President Clinton's administration, 162 Federal circuit and district court judges had been confirmed. By comparison, although there are 20 judicial nominees stalled and awaiting final consideration by the Senate--many of them stalled since May and June-- even after the confirmation of Judge Donald, the total confirmations of Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed during the first 3 years of the Obama administration will only be 96.

In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district judges. By contrast, President Obama is approaching his 32nd month in office and we have yet to reach that total. The Senate has a long way to go before the end of next year to match the 205 confirmations of President Bush's judicial nominees during his first term.

To understand the strain on the Federal judiciary and the American people, it is important to note another set of comparisons. The number of judicial vacancies was reduced during the first years of the Bush and Clinton administration. The vacancies in early September in the third year of the Bush administration had been reduced to 54. The vacancies in early September in

the third year of the Clinton administration had been reduced to 55. By contrast, the judicial vacancies now in September of the third year of the Obama administration stand at 93. As the Congressional Research Service confirmed in a recent report, this is a historically high level of vacancies and this is now the longest period of historically high vacancy rates on the Federal judiciary in the last 35 years.

Even though Federal judicial vacancies have remained near or above 90 for more than 2 years, the Senate's Republican leadership continues to delay votes on many qualified, consensus nominations. After tonight, there will remain 15 unanimously reported nominees stalled on the calendar. 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 more 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.

It is not accurate to pretend that real progress is being made in these circumstances. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to suffer. This is another area in which we must come together for the American people. There is no reason Senators cannot join together to finally bring down the excessive number of vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long.

At a time when judicial vacancies remain near or above 90, these needless delays perpetuate the judicial vacancies crisis that Chief Justice Roberts wrote of last December and that the President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country have urged us to join together to end. The Senate can and should be doing a better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans across the country.

We were able to lower vacancies dramatically during President Bush's years in office, cutting them in half during his first term. The Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, and with Republican objections slowing the pace of confirmations, judicial vacancies have been at crisis levels for over 2 years. As a recent report by the Constitutional Accountability Center noted, ``Never before has the number of vacancies risen so sharply and remained so high for so long during a President's term.'' I ask unanimous consent that an August 5 letter to the editor of the Washington Post from Wade Henderson, entitled ``Remiss in confirming judges,'' and an August 4 article in Politico from Andrew Blotky and Doug Kendall entitled ``It's Senate's duty to confirm judges,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. The vacancy rate--which we reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--is back above 10 percent. Federal judicial vacancies now stand at 93.

Time and time again over the last 2\1/2\ years, I have urged the Senate to come together and work to address this crisis. At the beginning of this year, I called for a return to regular order in the consideration of nominations. We have seen that approach work on the Judiciary Committee. I have thanked the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, many times for his cooperation with me to make sure that the committee continues to make progress in the consideration of nominations. His approach has been the right approach. Regrettably, it has not been matched on the floor, where the refusal by Republican leadership to come to regular time agreements to consider nominations has put our progress--our positive action--at risk.

I expect the committee in the weeks ahead to continue to make progress and favorably report superbly qualified, consensus judicial nominations to fill vacancies in States throughout the country, in States with Democratic and Republican Senators. Most of these nominations will, I expect, join the 15 on the calendar after tonight's vote that were reported unanimously. I hope that the Americans in those districts will not have to wait for months for the Senate to act to fill the vacancies and ensure that the Federal courts in their States have the judges they need.

Republican obstruction has led to a backlog of dozens of judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Half of the judicial nominations on the calendar would fill judicial emergency vacancies. Many were ready for final consideration and confirmation in May and June.

Republican leadership should explain to the people and Senators from South Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Texas, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Florida why there continue to be vacancies on the Federal courts in their States that could easily be filled if the Senate would vote on the President's qualified, consensus nominees. Yet those nominees still wait for months on the Senate's calendar. These damaging delays leave the people of these States to bear the brunt of having too few judges available to do the work of the Federal courts.

All 20 of the judicial nominations on the calendar today have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee after a fair but thorough process. We review extensive background material on each nominee. All Senators on the committee, Democratic and Republican, have the opportunity to ask the nominees questions at a live hearing. Senators also have the opportunity to ask questions in writing following the hearing and to meet with the nominees. All of these nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. They should not be delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being so thoroughly and fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.

I continue to urge the Senate to join together to end the judicial vacancies crisis that concerns Chief Justice Roberts, the President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country. I hope that this month Senators will finally join together to begin to bring down the excessive number of vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long. We can and must do better. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to suffer.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 5, 2011]

Remiss in Confirming Judges

(By Wade Henderson)

In Ben Pershing's close-to-complete Aug. 2 Fed Page roundup

of the most important stories overshadowed by the debt-

ceiling debate [``Debt debate isn't only story on Capitol

Hill,'' In Session], one story that failed to make the cut

was how the Senate's refusal to vote on 20 judicial nominees

before recess has led to almost as many vacancies on the

federal bench--111--as there were in January.

During the past two months, the Senate Judiciary Committee

has steadily processed nominations, yet the Senate has voted

on a mere nine judges. There is no reason to delay confirming

every one of the nominees pending before the full Senate. All

but one enjoyed strong bipartisan support in committee. In

fact, 17 of the 20 were approved without recorded opposition.

Many of these seats have been designated as ``judicial

emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts, meaning there are simply not enough judges to get the

work done. More and more people seeking to protect their

rights in a court of law are forced to wait, and justice

delayed is all too often justice denied.

I have outlined where we stand in comparison to the progress we made when the Senate moved to confirm 205 Federal circuit and district judges during President Bush's first term. Three years into President Obama's administration, we have yet to confirm 100 judges. We are going to have to move pretty quickly to catch up, especially to what a Democratic-controlled Senate did for President Bush. I wish to be able to do the same for President Obama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I use my remaining time to speak as in morning business about the America Invents Act and the cloture vote that will be taken tonight on proceeding to that important measure.

The Senate is today turning its attention back to the America Invents Act--a measure that will help create jobs, energize the economy and promote innovation without adding a penny to the deficit. This legislation is a key component of both Democratic and Republican jobs agendas, and is a priority of the Obama administration.

Too often in recent years, good legislation has failed in the Senate because bills have become politicized. That should not be the case with patent reform. Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democratic or Republican objectives--they are American goals. That is why so many Democratic and Republican Senators have worked closely on this legislation for years, along with a similar bipartisan coalition of House Members.

And that is why a Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee can stand on the floor of the Senate and advocate, as I do today, that the Senate pass a House bill, H.R. 1249, sponsored by the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas. As Chairman Smith and I wrote earlier this year in a joint editorial, ``Patent reform unleashes American innovation, allowing patent holders to capitalize on their inventions and create products and jobs.''

This bill, which passed the House with more than 300 votes, will make crucial improvements to our outdated patent system. These improvements can be divided into three important categories that are particularly noteworthy.

First, the bill will speed the time it takes for applications on true inventions to issue as high quality patents, which can then be commercialized and used to create jobs. There are nearly 700,000 applications pending at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that have yet to receive any action by the PTO. The Director of the PTO often says that the next great invention that will drive our economic growth is likely sitting in that backlog of applications.

The America Invents Act will ensure that the PTO has the resources it needs to work through its backlog of applications more quickly. The bill accomplishes this objective by authorizing the PTO to set its fees and creates a PTO reserve fund for any fees collected above the appropriated amounts in a given year--so that only the PTO will have access to these fees.

Importantly, the bill also provides immediate tools the PTO needs to fast track applications, and continues discounts for fast tracked applications requested by small business, as well as for applications involving technologies important to the Nation's economy or national competitiveness, thanks to amendments offered in the Senate by Senators Bennet and Menendez.

Second, the America Invents Act will improve the quality of both new patents issued by the PTO, as well as existing patents. High quality patents incentivize inventors and entrepreneurs by providing a limited monopoly over the invention. Low quality patents, conversely, can impede innovation if the product or process already exists.

The bill makes commonsense improvements to the system by allowing, for example, third parties to comment on pending applications so that patent examiners will have more and better information readily available. The bill also implements a National Academy of Sciences recommendation by creating a postgrant review process to weed out recently issued patents that should not have been issued in the first place.

The bill will also improve upon the current system for challenging the validity of a patent at the PTO. The current inter partes reexamination process has been criticized for being too easy to initiate and used to harass legitimate patent owners, while being too lengthy and unwieldy to actually serve as an alternative to litigation when users are confronted with patents of dubious validity.

Third, the America Invents Act will transition our patent filing system from a first-to-invent system to the more objective first- inventor-to-file system, used throughout the rest of the world, while retaining the important grace period that will protect universities and small inventors, in particular. As business competition has gone global, and inventors are increasingly filing applications in the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions, our current system puts American inventors and businesses at a disadvantage.

The differences cause confusion and inefficiencies for American companies

and innovators. These problems exist both in the application process and in determining what counts as ``prior art'' in litigation. We debated this change at some length in connection with the Feinstein amendment in March. That amendment was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 87 to 13. The Senate has come down firmly and decisively in favor or modernizing and harmonizing the American patent system with the rest of the world.

The House, to its credit, improved on the Senate bill in this area by including an expanded prior user right with the transition to a first- inventor-to-file system. Prior user rights are important for American manufacturing, in particular.

There is widespread support for the America Invents Act, and with good reason. In March, just before the Senate voted 95-5 to pass the America Invents Act, The New York Times editorialized that the America Invents Act will move America ``toward a more effective and transparent patent protection system'' that will ``encourage investment in inventions'' and ``should benefit the little guy'' by transitioning to a first-inventor-to-file system.

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post editorial board added that ``[i]n the six decades since its last overhaul, the patent system has become creaky,'' but the patent bill ``poised for final approval in the Senate would go a long way toward curing [the] problems.''

The Obama administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy in connection with the House bill, in which it argued that ``[t]he bill's much-needed reforms to the Nation's patent system will speed deployment of innovative products to market and promote job creation, economic growth, and U.S. economic competitiveness all at no cost to American taxpayers.''

The House bill is not the exact bill I would have written. It contains provisions that were not in the Senate bill, and it omits or changes other provisions from the Senate bill that I supported. But that is the legislative process, and the core elements of the House bill are identical or nearly identical to the core elements of the Senate bill. In addition, the House bill retains amendments adopted during Senate consideration of S. 23, including amendments offered by Senator Bennet, Senator Menendez, Senator Kirk, Senator Stabenow, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Reid, among others.

The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, will not only implement an improved patent system that will grow the economy and create jobs, but it is the product of a process of which we should all be proud. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate have worked together with the administration and all interested stakeholders large and small to craft legislation that has near unanimous support.

I thank Senator Kyl, the minority whip, for his comments early today. I agree with him that sending this House-passed bill directly to the President will begin the process of demonstrating to the American people that we can work together, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, on their behalf.

Those now advocating for enactment of the America Invents Act without further amendment include the United States Chamber of Commerce, the United Steelworkers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Association of American Universities, BIO and PhRMA, Community Bankers, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Coalition for Patent Fairness, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and businesses representing virtually every sector of our economy.

In a recent letter from Louis Foreman, a well known independent inventor, he wrote of his support for the America Invents Act saying:

The independent inventor has been well represented

throughout this process and we are in a unique situation

where there is overwhelming support for this legislation. . .

. H.R. 1249 is the catalyst necessary to incentivize

inventors and entrepreneurs to create the companies that will

get our country back on the right path and generate the jobs

we sorely need.

American ingenuity and innovation have been a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson examined the first patent application to today. A recent Department of Commerce report attributes three-quarters of America's post-World War II economic growth to innovation. It is the patent system that incentivizes that innovation when it holds true to the constitutional imperative to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.''

The Founders recognized the importance of promoting innovation. A number were themselves inventors. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The time for Congress to undertake this responsibility and enact patent reform legislation into law is now.

The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by American companies, and protected and promoted by American patent laws have made our system the envy of the world. But we cannot stand on a 1950s patent system and expect our innovators to flourish in a 21st century world.

The America Invents Act will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access to court is denied.

The President recently called on Congress to pass patent reform as soon as it returned from recess because it will create jobs and improve the economy without adding to the deficit. This bill is bipartisan, it is the product of years of thoughtful bicameral discussions, and it should be sent to the President's desk this week. There is no reason for delay.

When we proceeded to the Senate version of this legislation last February, we did so by unanimous consent. The Senate proceeded to approve patent reform legislation with 95 votes. It is disappointing that we are being delayed from completing this important legislation. Further delay does nothing for American inventors, the American economy or the creation of American jobs. It is time, time to take final action on the America Invents Act.

I see the time has arrived. Is the rollcall automatic?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back.

Mr. President, this is not a solution I would have preferred, but the compromise finally reached by the White House and congressional leaders has the potential to end this manufactured crisis. It is a solution that puts common sense and the national interest above partisanship and ideology.

The country has been pushed to the brink of catastrophe. The choice at hand is not this bill or something better. The choice is between the only bipartisan practical solution to the debt ceiling crisis, or a devastating default on the Nation's debts for the first time in our history. A default would send shock waves throughout our fragile economy. It would slap a credit rate tax on every household and every business in Vermont and across the country.

The solution before us includes $3 trillion in spending reductions reached through bipartisan negotiations that will yield the greatest overall budget savings ever. Just as Vermont families are having to make difficult financial decisions, we need to make long-term budget reforms, and the country should be spared the ordeal of having to go through this same kind of torment again just a few months from now.

The special congressional committee chartered by this legislation to recommend future deficit reduction can consider revenue measures, and I will continue to push for an end to outdated tax loopholes for giant oil firms and companies that ship American jobs overseas. I also continue to believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share in these solutions.

If the special congressional committee fails to make bipartisan recommendations, then the agreement calls for cuts in defense spending and protections for Social Security, Medicare benefits, Medicaid, veterans benefits and child nutrition. I strongly support these protections.

All along the American people have wanted this debt-limit crisis resolved promptly and fairly through the give-and-take of our representative government. It is extremely unfortunate that many who manufactured this crisis in the first place then stood in the way of a solution for weeks on end, threatening the first default on United States obligations in our history.

Many in this body recall, as I do, the period just two short decades ago when Congress and a Democratic President were able to balance the Federal budget and create budget surpluses that were on their way to paying off the national debt altogether. I remember also the key Senate vote to put us on that path, which had to be achieved without any support from the other side of the aisle. Those balanced budgets and surpluses also were achieved without any constitutional amendment requiring them. And those surpluses grew, until subsequent decisions were made by a new administration, and ratified by a new Congress, that squandered the surpluses and piled the debt up once again.

What the American people want, need, and deserve right now is a return to wise and disciplined leadership. We need the return of a willingness to cooperate and to forge solutions across partisan lines to solve the most pressing issues facing the country. The economic health of the Nation and the jobs of thousands of hardworking Americans should not be mired in politics.

The Senate throughout history has shown its remarkable ability to rise up in times of crisis to reflect the conscience of the Nation. Now is such a time, for the good of the country, for Democrats and Republicans in both chambers to rise to the occasion and put an end to this contrived crisis that has put our entire economy at risk.

Mr. President, today I honor the dean and president of Vermont Law School, Geoffrey B. Shields, as he announces his retirement after four decades as a practicing attorney, educator, and scholar. He will leave a legacy about which he should be very proud.

Dean Shields arrived at Vermont Law School in 2004, following a distinguished career in the public and private sectors. He received a bachelor of arts in economics, magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 1967. He earned his juris doctor from Yale Law School in 1972.

Over the last 8 years, Dean Shields has guided Vermont Law School along

a path of steady growth. Through his leadership the school has gained many new and talented faculty members, and has seen substantial growth in its endowment. He has initiated capital improvement projects on the school's campus, expanded the school's international partnerships, and has developed new clinics and institutes to focus on distinct fields of legal study. And he has sustained and built upon Vermont Law School's environmental law program, which has been rated the best program in the Nation for the last three consecutive years, and in the top two for the last 21 years. These continuing successes are reflective of Dean Shields' strong leadership and the dedication of the faculty, staff, and students who sustain a vital community of learning and innovation in the hills of central Vermont.

During his career in public service, Dean Shields served as assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and as counsel to Senator Frank Church. After he earned his law degree, he served as a law clerk for the late Judge James Oakes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for whom a class room building at Vermont Law School is named.

In the private sector, he served as a partner at the Chicago and Washington, DC, law firm of Gardner Carton and Douglas, where he was nationally recognized for his expertise in nonprofit law, corporate law, health care law and international trade law.

Dean Shields has also made important contributions to education and scholarship beyond Vermont Law School. In Brattleboro, VT, he served as a foreign student advisor and assistant to the president at the Experiment in International Living and as an adjunct professor of economics at Marlboro College in Marlboro, VT. Dean Shields has also been involved in foreign policy issues through editing and writing, and as a member of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

In addition to his professional accomplishments, Dean Shields recently overcame serious illness with grace, humility, and determination. As he moves into the next chapter of his life, Marcelle and I wish him and his wife Genie the best for continued health and happiness.

I thank Dean Shields for his 8 years of dedication to Vermont Law School, and I convey my admiration and respect for the contributions he has made to Vermont. He will leave Vermont's young law school and its faculty, staff and students in a strong position for continued growth and success. I am sure he will be greatly missed by all of those who have worked with him and learned from him. I wish him all the best.

Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the Senate has failed to take significant steps before the August recess to address the serious crisis of judicial vacancies on courts around the country. Last August, Senate Republicans left 17 judicial nominations pending and consented to confirm only four Federal circuit and district court nominations before the recess. I noted at that time what a serious blow that was to our ability to make progress addressing the judicial vacancies crisis that had already persisted for well over a year. Today, as the Senate recesses with judicial vacancies still near 90 as they were a year ago, the Senate is doing even worse, confirming only 4 judicial nominations of the 24 nominees already considered by the Judiciary Committee and awaiting a Senate vote.

Last week, I urged the Senate to confirm the two dozen judicial nominations already fully considered by the Judiciary Committee and ready for final action by the Senate. Of them, 20 were unanimously reported, without a single negative vote. Many have been pending without final action for months. I am, again, disappointed as Senate Republicans continue to delay these much needed and long awaited confirmations.

Even though Federal judicial vacancies have remained near or above 90 for more than 2 years, the Senate's Republican leadership has refused to consent to vote on these qualified, consensus nominations, leaving 16 of the 20 unanimously reported nominees in limbo. This is not the way to make real progress. The American people should not have to wait more weeks and months for the Senate to do its constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more promptly. They were not forced to languish for months. In the second year of the Bush administration, in 2002, before the August recess the Senate moved ahead to confirm a dozen judicial nominees. The next year, with a Republican Senate majority, Senate Democrats consented to seven confirmations before the August recess. With the delays that have been backlogging confirmations for years now, we have 20 unanimously reported judicial nominees who could all have been confirmed before this recess. Regrettably, 16 will not go forward today because Republicans refuse to consent.

At a time when judicial vacancies remain near 90, these needless delays perpetuate the judicial vacancies crisis that Chief Justice Roberts wrote of last December and that the President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country have urged us to join together to end. The Senate can and should be doing a better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

Just last week, the Congressional Research Service released a report that confirms what many of us have been saying for some time: This is the longest sustained period of historically high vacancy rates on the Federal judiciary in the last 35 years.

This is hardly surprising. Republican obstruction kept the total confirmations in the first year of the President's term to the lowest total for a first year in more than 50 years, when only 12 judicial nominees were allowed to be considered. Republican obstruction kept the 2-year total of confirmations to the lowest total in 35 years, for the first 2 years of a President's term, with only a total of 60 Federal circuit and district court nominations confirmed during the course of those entire first 2 years of the Obama administration. Accordingly, judicial vacancies have perpetuated needlessly and caused needless delay on consensus nominees.

We are seeing it, again, this week as we approach the August recess in the third year of the Obama administration. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. It looks like it will take twice as long to reach 100 confirmations of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. President Obama has been in office for 31 months and only 95 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees have been confirmed. There are two dozen more that are stalled, awaiting final Senate action. By the August recess in the third year of the Bush administration, the Senate had confirmed 143 Federal circuit and district court judges. This year, the comparable number is only 95.

It is not accurate to pretend that real progress is being made in these circumstances. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed and it is the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to suffer. This is another area in which we must come together for the American people. There is no reason Senators cannot join together to finally bring down the excessive number of vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long.

I have always taken seriously the responsibility of the Senate to make sure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs. Senate Republicans had 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. Despite that, 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; during the next 24 months, with a Republican majority in the Senate, confirmed 105 more, for a total of 205 confirmed judges during President Bush's first term. We have a long way to go for the Senate to be as productive as we were during President Bush's first term.

We were able to lower vacancies dramatically during President Bush's years in office, cutting them in half during his first term. The Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, and with Republican objections slowing the pace of confirmations, judicial vacancies have been at crisis levels for over 2 years. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. They now stand at 88 vacancies. The vacancy rate--which we reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--is back above 10 percent.

Time and time again over the last 2\1/2\ years, I have urged the Senate to come together and work to address this crisis. At the beginning of this year, I called for a return to regular order in the consideration of nominations. We

have seen that approach work on the Judiciary Committee. I have thanked the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, many times for his cooperation with me to make sure that the committee continues to make progress in the consideration of nominations. His approach has been the right approach. Regrettably, it has not been matched on the floor, where the refusal by Republican leadership to come to regular time agreements to consider nominations has put our progress--our positive action--at risk.

Republican obstruction has led to a backlog of two dozen judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. More than half of the judicial nominations on the calendar would fill judicial emergency vacancies. Yet, due to Republican objections, we have lost another opportunity to make progress by confirming consensus nominations.

Before the Memorial Day recess, I urged that the Senate to take up and vote on the many consensus judicial nominations then on the calendar and ready for final action. But Republican Senators would not agree to consider a single one. With nearly 20 judicial nominees available to the Senate for final action, only 1 was considered before the July 4 recess. In fact, the Senate has now considered only 11 nominations in the last 10 weeks and has only confirmed a total of 18 judicial nominees who had their hearings this year.

Senate Republicans have departed from the Senate's traditional practice by refusing to confirm even unanimous, consensus nominees. I still await an explanation from the other side of the aisle why these nominations could not be considered and confirmed. Republican leadership should explain to the people and Senators from Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Arkansas, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania why there continue to be vacancies on the Federal courts in their States that could easily be filled if the Senate would do its constitutional duty and vote on the President's nominations. These judicial nominees have the support of Republican home State Senators. In fact, there are multiple nominees still pending from Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Yet those nominees still wait for months on the Senate's calendar without explanation for the damaging delays, leaving the people of those States to bear the brunt of having too few judges.

All 24 of the judicial nominations on the calendar have been favorably reported by the Judiciary after a fair but thorough process. We review extensive background material on each nominee. All Senators on the committee, Democratic and Republican, have the opportunity to ask the nominees questions at a live hearing. Senators also have the opportunity to ask questions in writing following the hearing and to meet with the nominees. All of these nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. They should not be delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being so thoroughly and fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.

Last week, the president of the American Bar Association, Stephen Zack, wrote to the Senate leaders ``to urge [them] to redouble [their] efforts to fill existing judicial vacancies promptly so that the federal courts will have the judges they need to uphold the rule of law and deliver timely justice.'' He wrote:

As lawyers who practice in federal courts across this

nation, ABA members know firsthand that long-standing

vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access

to the courts and create strains that will inevitably reduce

the quality of our justice system and erode public confidence

in the ability of the courts to vindicate constitutional

rights or render fair and timely decisions.

Mr. Zack's concerns echo those of Chief Justice Roberts, the President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country who have also urged us to join together to end the judicial vacancies crisis. The Senate can and should be doing a better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

The four nominees the Senate will consider today like so many others left on the calendar have the strong support of their home State Senators--Republicans and Democrats--and all were reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kathleen Williams was first nominated over a year ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. Her nomination has the support of both of her home State Senators--Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and Senator Rubio, a Republican--and was reported without objection by the Judiciary Committee on May 12. Ms. Williams has been the Federal public defender for the Southern District of Florida for 15 years, having been appointed five times by the Eleventh Circuit, most recently earlier this year. Ms. Williams was previously a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida, and she also worked in private civil litigation. Her balance of experience as a prosecutor and as a public defender providing legal services to thousands of defendants who cannot afford their own attorney will serve her well on the Federal bench.

Sara Darrow was nominated over 8 months ago to fill a judicial vacancy in the Central District of Illinois. Ms. Darrow has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Senator Durbin, a Democrat, and Senator Kirk, a Republican. Ms. Darrow has been a prosecutor for over 12 years, working as a State's Attorney for Illinois and later as a Federal prosecutor in Illinois and Iowa. She is currently chief of the violent crimes unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of Illinois. Her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection on May 12.

Nelva Gonzales Ramos was nominated in January of this year to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Texas. Her nomination has the strong support of both her Republican home State Senators, Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and was reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection May 12. She has served for over 12 years as a State judge in Texas, where she has presided over more than 1,200 cases. Judge Ramos has been reelected twice by the people of Texas to serve as a State judge. Prior to joining the bench, she also had a successful career as a litigator in private practice.

Richard Brooke Jackson was first nominated over 10 months ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of Colorado. He is currently the chief judge for the First Judicial District in Colorado, where he has served for over 13 years, earning recognitions as the ``Best State Judge in Colorado'' in 2010. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Jackson practiced law for 26 years in Denver, CO, where he was made a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Judge Jackson's nomination has the strong support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Udall and Senator Bennet, and was reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection on May 12.

The Senate's failure to take action and vote on 20 of the 24 judicial nominees reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and reported favorably to the Senate is yet another in a long line of missed opportunities to come together for the American people. This is not how the Senate has acted in years past with other Presidents' judicial nominees. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to suffer.

I hope that when we return from the August recess, Senators can finally join together to begin to bring down the excessive number of vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long. We can and must do better.

I ask unanimous consent that a recent letter from the President of the American Bar Association and a recent column by Professor Carl Tobias be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, today, I joined Senator Cornyn in reintroducing the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bipartisan bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Last week, the House Republican leadership stripped these FOIA provisions from legislation that unanimously passed the Senate in May as part of a procedural maneuver to address unrelated issues surrounding the debt limit. I urge the Senate to promptly reaffirm its bipartisan commitment to open government and to once again pass the Leahy-Cornyn Faster FOIA Act of 2011 so that this good government bill can be enacted into law.

The Faster FOIA Act enjoys broad bipartisan support from across the political spectrum. The Senate unanimously passed this bill in May, after the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Recently, more than 35 transparency organizations urged the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to act on this legislation. On July 26, the Washington Post editorialized that the House should promptly enact this bipartisan bill to improve the FOIA process.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced the Faster FOIA Act in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. During the intervening years, the problem of excessive FOIA delays has not gone away. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. The current bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.

The Faster FOIA Act would establish a bipartisan Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays to examine the root causes of excessive FOIA delays. The Commission would recommend to Congress and the President steps that should be taken to reduce these delays so that the administration of the FOIA is more equitable and efficient.

The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people so that our Democracy remains vibrant and free. This is a laudable goal that we all share. Neither Chamber of Congress should allow partisan politics to obstruct the important goal of this bill.

The ongoing debate in Congress about the national debt has made clear that we must find ways to work together, across party lines and ideologies, to address the many challenges facing our Nation. This bipartisan spirit is at the core of the Faster FOIA Act. I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. I urge the Senate to promptly pass this bill and I hope that the House of Representatives will quickly follow suit and enact this good government measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post editorial entitled: ``Time to Reinforce FOIA'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would just add to what Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, and Senator Levin have said: that a 60-vote requirement is a filibuster. It is to block this.

Now, speaking of how long people have been here, I came here when President Ford was President. I have served under President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President William Jefferson Clinton, President George W. Bush, and now President Obama. I cannot remember, with any of those Presidents prior to President Obama, of this insistence for a 60-Member vote to raise the debt limit ceiling.

Certainly, with the number of times we raised the debt limit under President Ronald Reagan, I do not remember one single Republican suggesting that we needed 60 votes. The same was true I believe under President George H.W. Bush, and under President George W. Bush. The numerous times the debt ceiling was raised, not a single Republican said it is so important we must have a 60-vote margin.

Yet all of a sudden, with President Obama, the whole criteria changes. Suddenly the rules that were good enough for Republicans with a Republican President are something to be changed with this President.

The American public, Republican or Democratic, can see through that. This is a different standard. We are saying this President must follow different rules from every President before him--Republican or Democrat. There is no way that can be considered fair; no way that can be considered anything but a gimmick.

It is unfortunate that a partisan faction first manufactured this debt limit crisis and now continues to prevent a bipartisan solution. An unwillingness to compromise and find a bipartisan solution has led us to the brink. The United States of America is now just 3 days away from defaulting on its obligations for the first time in the history of this country. And Senators are demanding we have to have a supermajority vote to stop this from happening.

That is not responsible. We are needlessly risking financial turmoil throughout this great country, and it will send ripple effects worldwide. A temporary solution is no solution at all. It would undermine the stability that our economy needs to grow.

Now is the time to set aside partisan bickering, pass a bill. It is the time for the grownups in the room to take over and reach a bipartisan solution on the debt ceiling, as has been done every time in the 37 years I have been here.

A my-way-or-no-way faction in the other body has had no qualms about playing Russian roulette with our entire economy and with every American family in it. Regrettably, as we all saw so clearly again yesterday, the House leadership's response to win this faction's votes has simply been to shift their bill even further away from helpfulness or reality. Everybody knows the House debt bill, written under this duress, was a sham, with no chance of passing and with no chance of averting a debt catastrophe.

On Friday, at the finish line, shortly prior to a vote on their debt bill, House leaders added to their package the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. This was done as a desperate attempt to win a few more votes. This is not the time for bumper sticker politics. It is a time for real leadership and real bipartisanship.

Many in this body recall, as I do, the period just two short decades ago when we were able to not only balance the Federal budget but to create budget surpluses that were on their way to paying off the national debt. On the one hand, we had people who said let's pass a constitutional amendment for some time a decade or two decades in the future. We actually voted to balance a budget. Not a single Republican voted to balance the budget. They talked about it, but not a single Republican voted to balance the budget. We had to actually have Vice President Gore vote to break a tie vote. But we balanced the budget. It created enormous surpluses, it started paying down the national debt, over 20 million new jobs were created, and President Clinton was able to give a huge surplus to President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, decisions made by that administration and ratified by the new Congress squandered the surplus and started, once again, piling up debt.

So this good and great Nation does not need the straitjacket of one- size-fits-all change to our Constitution to do what needs to be done. We have done it. What the American people want and need and deserve is a return to wise and disciplined leadership. We need the return of willingness by those of us chosen to serve within the Halls of government, to cooperate and to forge bipartisan solutions.

At this point, Majority Leader Reid's debt reduction package of $2.2 trillion in spending cuts is Congress's best chance to avoid default and prevent a disastrous credit-rating downgrade. Unlike the House plan, the Reid solution is an invitation to consensus. The Senate solution incorporates spending reductions reached in bipartisan negotiations, yielding greater overall budget savings sooner than the House proposal. But it would also save the country the ordeal of going through this torment again just a few months from now. We have seen how this current debate has taken much longer to do what we need to do.

As this calamity has unfolded in slow motion, it has been smothering the chance for action on nearly all other national priorities, from jobs to national security, to air traffic control. The congressional deadlock has prevented passage of a routine renewal of the Federal Aviation Administration's charter to operate. Today, the Senate could be considering the America Invents Act that is a bipartisan, bicameral bill ready to move across the finish line that creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and unleashes American innovation and does not add a penny to the deficit. But instead of acting on constructive and necessary priorities such as these, we are stuck playing a dangerous game with our economy. The deadline for default would not change. I commend Leader Reid for his willingness and desire to work in the spirit of compromise with the Republican leader and others to find a bipartisan solution to halt this perilous march to the edge of the financial cliff.

All American people want this solved now, with a fair solution and through the give-and-take of our representative government, not by some extra special vote but just vote it up or vote it down. I am confident that if we can work together, Congress will avert this looming, man- made economic calamity. It is late but it is not yet too late for Republicans and Democrats to come together, for the sake of our country, in fashioning a bipartisan solution to raise the debt limit, reduce our long-term debt, and give our economy the long-term foundation to prosper.

I have had the privilege to represent Vermont in the Senate for 37 years. I have been blessed enough to witness many times when the Senate has shown its remarkable ability to rise to reflect the conscience of the Nation. I believe now is such a time for Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, for the good of the country, to once again rise to the occasion and to have us be the conscience of the Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this evening, the Senate is considering S. 627, as amended by the House of Representatives--the bill now called the Budget Control Act of 2011. Earlier this week, the House Republican Leadership used a procedural maneuver to strip from this bill bipartisan provisions to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, that unanimously passed the Senate. I urge the Senate to restore the bipartisan Leahy-Cornyn Faster FOIA Act of 2011, as originally and unanimously passed by the Senate in May, when the Senate considers its budget bill.

The Faster FOIA Act enjoys broad bipartisan support from across the political spectrum. The Senate unanimously passed this bill in May, after the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Recently, more than 35 transparency organizations urged the House Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform to act on this legislation. On Tuesday, the Washington Post editorialized that the House should promptly enact this bipartisan bill to improve the FOIA process.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced the Faster FOIA Act in 2005, to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. During the intervening years, the problem of excessive FOIA delays has not gone away. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. The current bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.

The Faster FOIA Act would establish a bipartisan Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays to examine the root causes of excessive FOIA delays. The Commission would recommend to Congress and the President steps that should be taken to reduce these delays, so that the administration of the FOIA is more equitable and efficient.

The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free. This is a laudable goal that we all share. Neither Chamber of Congress should allow partisan politics to obstruct the important goal of this bill.

The ongoing debate in Congress about the national debt has made clear that we must find ways to work together, across party lines and ideologies, to address the many challenges facing our Nation. This bipartisan spirit is at the core of the Faster FOIA Act. I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. I urge the Senate to include the Faster FOIA Act in its budget bill, and I urge the Congress to promptly enact this good government measure.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters in support of reinstating the Faster FOIA Act in the final debt ceiling package.

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

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

Mr. President, I know my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, is going to be seeking recognition, and perhaps others. I certainly have no objection to that. I realize we are on the Mueller nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any interruption for other business, the Mueller vote still be at the time we originally planned, which is around 4 p.m.

I yield the floor.