Floor Statements

Mr. President, the United States of America has long been the world leader in invention and innovation. That leadership has propelled our economic growth, but we cannot

remain complacent while expecting to stay on top.

A Newsweek study last year found that only 41 percent of Americans believe that the United States is staying ahead of China on innovation. A Thompson Reuters analysis has already predicted that China will outpace the United States in patent filings this year. China, in fact, has a specific plan not just to overtake the United States this year in patent applications, but to more than quadruple its patent filings over the next 5 years.

That is astonishing, until considering that China has been modernizing its patent laws and promoting innovation while the United States has failed to keep pace. It has now been nearly 60 years since Congress last acted to reform American patent law. We can no longer wait.

Today, I am reintroducing bipartisan patent reform legislation that is the culmination of three Congresses worth of bipartisan, bicameral work, including eight hearings in the Senate alone. The Patent Reform Act of 2011 is structured on legislation first introduced in the House by Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman in 2005. The legislation will accomplish three important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate: improve the application process by transitioning to a first-inventor-to-file system; improve the quality of patents issued by the USPTO by introducing several quality-enhancement measures; and provide more certainty in litigation.

In many areas that were highly contentious when the patent reform debate began, the courts have stepped in to act. Their decisions reflect the concerns heard in Congress that questionable patents are too easily obtained and too difficult to challenge. The courts have moved the law in a generally positive direction, more closely aligned with the text of the statutes.

Most recently, the Federal Circuit aggressively moved to constrain run-away damage awards, which has plagued the patent system by basing awards on unreliable numbers, untethered to the reality of licensing decisions. As the court continues to move in the right direction, it is more apparent than ever that the gatekeeper compromise on damages we have worked to reach with Senator Feinstein and others is what is needed to ensure an award of a reasonable royalty is not artificially inflated or based on irrelevant factors.

The courts have addressed issues where they can, but in some areas, only Congress can take the necessary steps. The Patent Reform Act will both speed the application process and, at the same time, improve patent quality. It will provide the USPTO with the resources it needs to work through its application backlog, while also providing for greater input from third parties to improve the quality of patents issued and that remain in effect.

High quality patents are the key to our economic growth. They benefit both patent owners and users, who can be more confident in the validity of issued patents. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, by contrast, enable patent trolls and constitute a drag on innovation. Too many dubious patents also unjustly cast doubt on truly high quality patents.

The Patent Reform Act provides the tools the USPTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff. It will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish. The Department of Commerce recently issued a report indicating that these reforms will create jobs without adding to the deficit. The Obama administration supports these efforts, as do industries and stakeholders from all sectors of the patent community. Congressional action can no longer be delayed.

Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democrat or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers.

Thomas Freidman wrote not too long ago in The New York Times that the country which ``endows its people with more tools and basic research to invent new goods and services [] is the one that will not just survive but thrive down the road. . . . We might be able to stimulate our way back to stability, but we can only invent our way back to prosperity.''

Reforming our patent system will stimulate the American economy through structural changes, rather than taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with all Senators and our counterparts in the House, who have also made this a bipartisan priority, to ensure that this is the year we make our patent system reward inventors and provide certainty to users.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friends and neighbors from New England--Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine--to introduce a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to set the appropriate truck-weight standards on the interstates in their states.

For too long, Vermont and Maine have been at a competitive disadvantage while our next-door neighbors in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Quebec have enjoyed the economic benefits that come with higher highway truck weight limits. Due to these restrictions, the heaviest truck traffic in Vermont and Maine must travel over smaller and narrower roadways, creating significant safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists and putting pressure on our already overburdened secondary roads and bridges.

That is why Senator Collins and I included language in the 2010 transportation funding bill to implement pilot programs that allowed heavier trucks on interstates in Vermont and Maine for one year and studied the impacts of this policy change on highway safety, bridge and road durability, commerce, truck volumes, and energy use in Vermont.

During the past year I have heard from a number of Vermont truckers, business owners, and state and local officials who support extending the pilot program because of the economic and safety benefits they saw when the trucks were on the Interstates. Most importantly, many Vermonters reported a significant reduction of heavy truck traffic in our downtowns and villages.

Unfortunately, last month the leadership on the other side of the aisle

blocked consideration of an omnibus budget bill that included a provision Senator Collins and I authored to extend the Vermont and Maine truck weight pilot programs for another year. This sudden and senseless reversal of a previous commitment to support the bill led to the end of the Vermont and Maine pilot programs in December.

As a result the heaviest trucks in our states have been forced to divert back to secondary roads--and the negative economic impact of these trucks is once again being felt in downtowns and villages throughout Vermont and Maine.

I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Snowe in introducing this bipartisan bill today. It will stop overweight trucks from having to rumble through our historic villages and downtowns, and it will better protect our citizens and our ailing transportation infrastructure.

I appreciate the support this legislation has received from the State of Vermont, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Truck and Bus Association, the Vermont Petroleum Association, the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, and many individual businesses and municipalities throughout Vermont.

Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act of 2011. This legislation is an important first step toward guaranteeing the effectiveness and scientific integrity of forensic evidence used in criminal cases, and in ensuring that Americans can have faith in their criminal justice system.

In March of 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its examination of serious issues concerning forensic science, which is at the heart of our criminal justice system. The Committee has studied the problem exhaustively, and has worked with a wide array of experts and stakeholders. The legislation I introduce today is a product of this process. It seeks to strengthen our confidence in the criminal justice system, and the evidence it relies upon, by ensuring that forensic evidence and testimony is accurate, credible, and scientifically grounded.

The National Academy of Science published a report in February 2009 asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that urgently need to be addressed. The report suggested that basic research establishing the scientific validity of many forensic science disciplines has never been done in a comprehensive way. It suggested that the forensic sciences lack uniform and unassailable standards governing the accreditation of laboratories, the certification of forensic practitioners, and the testing and analysis of evidence.

The National Academy of Science's report was an urgent call to action. It has been hailed and widely cited since its release. It has also been criticized by many. I did not view the Academy's report as the final word on this issue, but rather as the starting point for a searching review of the state of forensic science in this country.

Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held two hearings on the issue. Committee members and staff spent countless hours talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, judges, forensic practitioners, academic experts, and many, many others to learn as much as we could about what is happening in the forensic sciences and what needs to be done.

As this effort has progressed, I have been disturbed to learn about still more cases in which innocent people may have been convicted, and perhaps even executed, in part due to faulty forensic evidence. It is a double tragedy when an innocent person is convicted. An innocent person suffers, and a guilty person remains free, leaving us all less safe. We must do everything we can to avoid that untenable outcome.

At the same time, through the course of this inquiry, it has become abundantly clear that the men and women who test and analyze forensic evidence do tremendous work that is vital to our criminal justice system. I remember their important contributions and hard work from my days as a prosecutor, when some of the forensic disciplines we have now did not even exist. Their work is even more important today, and we need to strengthen the field of forensics--and the justice system's confidence in it--so that their hard work can be consistently relied upon, as it should be.

It is beyond question that everyone recognizes the need for forensic evidence that is accurate and reliable. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers want evidence that can be relied upon to determine guilt and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Defense attorneys want strong evidence that can be used to exclude innocent people from suspicion. Forensic science practitioners want their work to have as much certainty as possible and to be given deserved deference. All scientists and all attorneys who care about these issues want the science that is admitted as evidence in the courtroom to match the science that is proven through rigorous testing and research in the laboratory.

There is also general agreement that the forensic sciences can be improved through strong and unassailable research to test and establish the validity of the forensic disciplines, as well as the application of consistent and regular standards in the field. There is a dire need for well managed and appropriately directed funding for research, development, training, and technical assistance. It is a good investment, as it will lead to fewer trials and appeals, and will reduce crime by ensuring that those who commit serious offenses are promptly captured and convicted.

There is also broad consensus that all forensic laboratories should be required to meet rigorous accreditation standards and that forensic practitioners should be required to obtain meaningful certification.

The bill I introduce today seeks to address these widely recognized needs. It requires that all forensic science laboratories that receive Federal funding or Federal business be accredited according to rigorous standards. It requires all relevant personnel who perform forensic work for any laboratory or agency that gets Federal money to become certified in their fields, which will mean meeting basic proficiency, education, and training requirements.

The bill sets up a rigorous process to determine the most serious needs for research to establish the basic validity of the forensic disciplines, and establishes grant programs to provide for peer- reviewed scientific research to answer fundamental questions and promote innovation. It also sets up a process for this research to lead to appropriate standards and best practices in each discipline. The bill funds research into new technologies and techniques that will allow forensic testing to be done more quickly, more efficiently, and more accurately. I believe these are proposals that will be widely supported by those on all sides of this issue.

There have been of course some areas of disagreement, particularly as to who should oversee these vital reforms to the field of forensics. Some have argued that, because the purpose of forensic science is primarily to produce evidence to be used in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, it is vital that those regulating and evaluating forensics must have expertise in criminal justice. They have said that at the Federal level, the Department of Justice is the natural place for an office to examine and oversee the forensic sciences and have emphasized the need for forensic science practitioners to have substantial input in evaluating research and standards.

Others have argued that, for forensic science to truly engender our trust and confidence, its validity must be established by independent scientific research, and standards must be determined by scientists with no possible conflict of interest. They have argued for protections to ensure independent scientific decision making, as well as the significant involvement of Federal scientific agencies.

I find both of these arguments persuasive. I know firsthand the importance of understanding how the criminal justice system works when evaluating the needs and practices in forensic science. I also understand that it is absolutely essential that forensic science be grounded in independent scientific research in order to avoid any question of convictions being based on faulty forensic work.

This legislation attempts to address both of these concerns with a hybrid structure that ensures both criminal justice expertise and scientific independence. It establishes an Office of Forensic Science in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General within the Department of Justice. That office will have a Director who will make all final decisions about research priorities, standards, and structure and who will implement and enforce the systems set up by the legislation.

It also establishes a Forensic Science Board composed of forensic and academic scientists, prosecutors and defense attorneys, and other key stakeholders. The Board will have a careful balance, and a majority of its members will be scientists. It will recommend all research priorities and standards and other key definitions and structures before the Director of the Office of Forensic Science makes a decision. The bill will include important protections to encourage the Director to defer to the recommendations of the Board and to ensure that he or she explains to Congress and to the public, with opportunities for comment, any decision to disregard the Board's recommendations.

The bill also establishes committees of scientists to examine each individual forensic science discipline to determine research needs and standards. It includes protections to ensure that the committees' recommendations receive significant deference, and the committees will be overseen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, a respected scientific agency. NIST will also implement grant programs for research into the forensic sciences premised on the research priorities established by the Forensic Science Board and the Office of Forensic Science. The National Science Foundation will help to ensure that the grant programs are run properly, with rigorous scientific peer review and without any bias.

This bill aims to carefully balance the competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensics right. It also capitalizes on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. It seeks to proceed modestly and cost effectively, with ample oversight, checks, and controls. I am committed to exploring ways to use existing resources so that this urgent work will not negatively impact the budget. Ultimately, improvements in the forensic sciences will save money, reduce the number of costly appeals, shorten investigations and trials, and help to eliminate wrongful imprisonments.

I understand that sweeping forensic reform and criminal justice reform legislation not only should, but must, be bipartisan. There is no reason for a partisan divide on this issue; fixing this problem does not advance the interests of only prosecutors or defendants, or of Democrats or Republicans, but the interests of justice. I have worked closely with interested Republican Senators on this vital issue. I will continue to work diligently with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this becomes the consensus bipartisan legislation that it ought to be. I hope many will cosponsor this legislation, and work with me to ensure its passage.

I want to thank the forensic science practitioners, experts, advocates, law enforcement personnel, judges, and so many others whose input forms the basis for this legislation. Your passion for this issue and for getting it right gives me confidence that we will work together successfully to make much needed progress.

I hope all Senators will join me in advancing this important legislation to bolster confidence in the forensic sciences and the criminal justice system.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the closing days of the 111th Congress, a brief flurry of activity led to the confirmation of 19 long-pending judicial nominations. Regrettably, the stalemate that had prevented the Senate from confirming a single nomination between September 13 and December 16 resumed when Senate Republicans denied action on 19 other well-qualified, consensus judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ultimately, these nominations were returned to the President, including 15 nominations that received unanimous or near unanimous support in the committee. I suspect that when the President renominates these qualified individuals, they will be confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The only question will be why we were unable to take action on them sooner.

In his ``Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' Chief Justice Roberts rightly called attention to the problem facing many overburdened district and circuit courts across the country. The rise in judicial vacancies, which topped 110 in 2010, and an increasing number of judicial emergencies is of great concern to all Americans who seek justice from our courts.

Unfortunately, the unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominations seen in the last Congress, and the dramatic departure from the Senate's long-standing tradition of regularly considering consensus, noncontroversial nominations, marked a new chapter in what Chief Justice Roberts calls the ``persistent problem'' of filling judicial vacancies. A New York Times editorial from January 4, 2011, refers to Senate Republicans' ``refusal to give prompt consideration to noncontroversial nominees'' a ``terrible precedent.'' I agree, and I will ask that the Times' editorial be printed in the Record.

Nearly all of the mere 60 district and circuit court nominations the Senate was allowed to consider last year were confirmed with the overwhelming, bipartisan support of the Senate. Yet nearly a third of these nominations--19--were held up for more than 100 days, only to be confirmed unanimously. As the Times editorializes, ``apart from partisan gamesmanship, there was no reason that Republicans

held up these nominations for months only to unanimously approve nearly all of them in the waning days of the lame duck session.'' Among these nominations was that of Kimberly Mueller, nominated to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of California. Chief Justice Roberts cited this confirmation as one of the most sorely needed. Yet for more than 7 months, the Senate was prevented from considering the nomination to fill this vacancy. Judge Mueller's nomination was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee in May; her nomination was unanimously confirmed on December 16. No Senator objected to her qualifications, her record, or her fitness to serve. This sort of delay is the real crisis facing the Federal judiciary.

Lifetime appointments to the Federal bench should not be granted without due consideration. No Senator, Democrat or Republican, should simply rubberstamp the nominations of any President. In the first Congress of the Bush administration, the Democratic majority worked to confirm 100 judicial nominations, turning the page on the Republicans' pocket-filibusters of the 1990s. We proceeded with regular consideration of noncontroversial, consensus nominations, most of which received unanimous support in the Senate. We confirmed 20 nominations during the lameduck session in 2002, including two controversial circuit court nominations which were favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the lameduck session. Senate Republicans' decision in December to object to consideration of 19 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee--including 15 nominations with overwhelming bipartisan support--has established a new low with regard to judicial nominations. They set back the progress we have tried to make in confirming judges.

I suspect that President Obama will renominate these qualified individuals. I hope to work with the Judiciary Committee's new ranking Republican, Senator Grassley, to promptly consider and report these nominations to the full Senate. I hope that Senator Grassley will work with me to ensure the timely confirmation of these and other noncontroversial, consensus nominations, which will help reduce vacancies and address the judicial crisis.

The American people turn to our courts for justice. Likewise, the Senate must return to the time-honored traditions of the Senate, and work together to secure the confirmation of the President's judicial nominations. Judicial vacancies hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. Working together, we can restore the judicial confirmation process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times Article to which I referred.

Mr. President, the Senate boasts many persuasive voices, but there are few stronger than that of Senator Barbara Mikulski. To call her a trailblazer does not do justice to her long and storied career in Congress, representing the people of Maryland and advancing women's rights, civil rights, and justice for all Americans. This week, she becomes the Senate's longest serving woman Senator in U.S. history.

First elected to the House of Representatives in 1976, and to the Senate in 1986, Senator Mikulski has served the people of Maryland with honor and distinction. In Congress, she has remained committed to her roots in public service, which began as a social worker in Baltimore, helping at-risk children and helping seniors. After 5 years on the Baltimore City Council, Marylanders in the State's third congressional district sent Senator Mikulski to Congress, where she has continued her hard work and tireless advocacy for women and families.

Atop her list of priorities has been giving voice to issues concerning women's health. She worked to establish the National Institutes of Health Office of Women's Health and to implement standards to ensure that all women have access to quality mammography. She fought to expand access to maternity care. Most recently, through Senator Mikulski's leadership, the historic Affordable Care Act included strong antidiscrimination provisions to ensure that being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.

In early 2009, Senator Mikulski further proved she is, in fact, a force to be reckoned with, when her tireless efforts to advance the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act resulted in that legislation being one of the first laws to be signed by President Obama. Since the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, Senator Mikulski worked relentlessly to restore congressional intent and reverse the Court's decision to give employers blanket immunity for their discriminatory pay practices. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restored victims' ability to file suit for pay discrimination, and was an important step forward in ensuring that all workers receive equal pay for equal work.

I have been honored to work with Senator Mikulski in her capacity as

chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, where she has championed important programs to support state and local law enforcement, crime victims, and critical support programs for victims of domestic violence. I share her commitment to investing in the men and women who are charged with keeping our communities safe, and providing important support to victims of violence.

There is no question that Senator Mikulski is a leader in the Senate. As the dean of the Women of the Senate, she serves as a mentor to other women Senators who join the Chamber. She is a dedicated public servant, a strong voice for women, a consensus builder. She has said she is ``first and foremost the Senator from Maryland and the Senator for Maryland.'' For more than three decades, many of us have been proud to call her a friend.

I join with many others in congratulating Senator Mikulski on this historic achievement.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that H.R. 6523, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, includes a section to prohibit the transfer of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to the United States to face prosecution. This section takes away one of the greatest tools we have to protect our national security--our ability to prosecute terrorism defendants in Federal courts. The result is to make it more likely that terrorists will not be brought to justice.

Current law allows for the transfer of these terrorist suspects for prosecution in the Federal courts. This is a policy that I strongly support. I want to see those who have committed acts of terrorism convicted in our justice system and sentenced to long terms in prison.

Our Federal judges and Federal prosecutors have extraordinary experience dealing with complex terrorism and conspiracy cases. The record speaks for itself. Since September 11, 2001, over 425 persons have been convicted on terrorism related charges in the Federal courts--including more than 70 defendants since President Obama took office in January 2009.

And yet, despite this strong record, Congress continues to try to tie the hands of law enforcement and other security agencies. The prohibition contained in section 1032 of H.R. 6523 is a complete bar on transfers of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. There are no exceptions to this prohibition for Federal prosecutions. Rather than addressing the question of how to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all, Congress is obstructing efforts to bring these criminals to justice.

In a letter to the Senate leadership dated December 9, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder warned that this provision would ``set a dangerous precedent with serious implications for the impartial administration of justice.'' The Attorney General further stated that, by restricting the discretion of the executive branch to prosecute terrorists in Article III courts, Congress would ``tie the hands of the President and his national security advisers'' and would be ``taking away one of our most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism,'' Accordingly, this provision is short-sighted and unwise.

This prohibition language also sets a dangerous political precedent. Once the Senate votes in favor of a total bar to transfers, even for criminal trial, we will see it offered again and again. This is a door that, once opened, will not easily be closed.

I can think of only two possible motivations for including this ban of all transfers to the United States. One is to ensure that the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, some for years without charge, can only be tried by military commissions. The other is to ensure that these suspects are simply held in military detention at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. The very strict restrictions on transfers of suspects from Guantanamo Bay to other nations in section 1033 of H.R. 6523 suggests that indefinite detention is, in fact, the goal of these provisions.

For those who wish to see terrorism suspects tried only in military commissions, I urge them to study the record. The military commissions devised by the prior administration were plagued with problems and repeatedly overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has worked hard to revise the military commissions to make sure they meet constitutional standards. However, the new system is still largely untested, and the rules for these commissions were only just released earlier this year.

Military commissions have achieved only five convictions since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Four of the

five resulted from pleas. The sentences handed down in these five cases have been much shorter than those meted out in Federal court convictions. In contrast, our Federal courts have a long and distinguished history of successfully prosecuting even the most atrocious violent acts, and our judicial system is respected throughout the world.

The vital role of the rule of law and our judicial system in the fight against terrorism is also strongly supported by leaders of our military who served honorably to protect our nation and uphold the Constitution. On December 10, 2010, a group of retired generals and admirals voiced their opposition against restricting law enforcement's ability to try terrorists in Federal criminal courts, and wrote that, ``By trying terrorist suspects in civilian courts we deprive them of the warrior status they crave and treat them as the criminals and thugs they are. As long as Guantanamo is open it offers America's enemies a propaganda tool that is being used effectively to recruit others to their cause and undermines U.S. efforts to win support in the communities where our troops most need local cooperation to succeed.''

I believe strongly, as all Americans do, that we must do everything we can to prevent terrorism, and we must ensure severe punishment is imposed upon those who do us harm. As a former prosecutor, I have made certain that perpetrators of violent crimes receive serious punishment. I also believe strongly that we can ensure our safety and security, and bring terrorists to justice, in ways that are consistent with our laws and values. Congress should not limit law enforcement's ability to do just that.

Mr. President, I have heard complaints over the past few days about why we in the Senate are still working so close to the Christmas holiday. All of us would rather be home with our families, but of course we were sent here to serve the American people. We were sent here to the Senate to do the work of the American people, and we have been trying to complete our work for the past several weeks. One remaining issue demands our attention: taking care of the Americans who responded to the terrorist attacks on September 11th. We cannot turn our backs on these injured and ailing first responders. This is a defining issue of our American values--how we serve those who have sacrificed for our Nation.

Almost a decade ago, in the aftermath of attack, I visited the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, NY. There, I witnessed detectives and medical professionals conduct the heartbreaking work to sort debris from the World Trade Center Towers in order to recover the remains and personal effects of those killed in the 9/11 attacks. It is difficult to describe how moving and powerful this was. It affirmed my faith in the goodness of America and its citizens.

These Americans were doing everything they could to bring what little comfort and closure they could to the survivors of those killed. They were acting not for themselves but for their fellow citizens. These men and women were driven by the same sense of patriotism and compassion that drove so many brave Americans to rush from across the United States to respond at Ground Zero. Their acts of heroism, selflessness, and patriotism were emblematic of how Americans came together for one another.

The legislation we consider today is the least we can do for these men and women who answered the call of their Nation in our moment of crisis. It is for the 30 New York City police officers who have died since September 11, 2001, as the result of illnesses brought on by exposure to the toxic dust and debris. It is for the 13,000 first responders who are sick as a result of their brave actions at Ground Zero. It is for the thousands of men and women who came from across the United States to help the people of New York and our country. And it is for the thousands more who will need medical care in the future. They deserve the continuing support and assistance of their government, on behalf of all Americans.

It is deeply disappointing that passing this legislation has been so difficult. It should not be. If there is one thing on which we should find unanimity, it is fulfilling our obligation to the men and women who gave so much to help others on 9/11. These men and women asked nothing before they acted. They did what they thought was right. It is long past time for the Senate to do what is right by them.

I applaud the Senators from New York. They have worked tirelessly and in the end agreed to compromise with a few of Senators on the other side of the aisle who were blocking action on this bill to help these first responders. The legislation we will pass today does not go as far as many of us hoped and believe appropriate, but it will go a long way to help the dedicated police officers, firefighters, construction workers, and medical personnel who were injured because of their service at a time of great national need. I cannot think of a better measure to end our work on in this Chamber than the message that we honor their service by taking care of the injuries they sustained while serving.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is finally being allowed to consider a judicial nomination that has been stalled since August-- the nomination of Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I would understand the resistance to considering the nomination if President Obama had selected someone opposed by her home state Senators. But both Republican home state Senators support this nomination. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has worked with home state Senators, including Republican Senators. Despite all his efforts, this consensus nominee has been stalled for months and months while awaiting final Senate action.

When the nomination was considered by the Judiciary Committee before the August recess, it was reported unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat, all 19 members of the Judiciary Committee, voted in favor of her nomination. Still, she has been stalled for months and months. This is part of the dangerous pattern perpetrated the past two years as President Obama's highly-qualified judicial nominees have been stalled from final Senate action for extended periods. This is another example of the unnecessary delays that have led to a judicial vacancies crisis throughout the country. Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100 while nominations are forced to languish without final Senate action. In fact, President Obama's nominees have been forced to wait on average six times longer to be considered than President Bush's judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee during the first 2 years of his Presidency.

When the Senate is finally allowed to take action, most of his nominations are confirmed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities or unanimously. Final Senate action on dozens of President Obama's judicial nominations has been delayed without explanation or good reason and then confirmed unanimously. The most outrageous examples

are Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia, who was confirmed unanimously to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Denny Chin of New York, who was confirmed unanimously to the Second Circuit. Both required cloture petitions to end the filibusters against their confirmations and then they were each confirmed unanimously.

Others confirmed unanimously after months of delay are Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina, who was finally confirmed to the Fourth Circuit after almost 6 months of delay; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, who was finally confirmed to the Fourth Circuit after almost 11 month's delay; Judge Ray Lohier of New York, who was finally confirmed to the Second Circuit after almost 8 months of delay; Judge Beverly Martin of Tennessee, who was finally confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit after more than 4 months of delay; and James Greenaway of New Jersey, who was finally confirmed to the Third Circuit after almost 4 months of delay. I expect Scott Matheson of Utah to be confirmed unanimously to the Tenth Circuit, but not until there have been 6 months of unnecessary delay. I will not be surprised if Judge Murguia is confirmed unanimously, or nearly unanimously, after 4 unnecessary months of delay.

Examples of district court nominees who have been delayed for between 3 and 7 months before being confirmed unanimously are: Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California, Judge Catherine Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Ellen Hollander of the District of Maryland, Judge Susan R. Nelson of the District of Minnesota, Judge James Bredar of the District of Maryland, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge Edmond Chang of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the District of Hawaii, and Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts.

Ten years ago, Mary Murguia became the first Latina to serve as a Federal Judge in Arizona when she was nominated by President Clinton to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She will now become the first Hispanic--and only the second woman--from Arizona to serve on the Ninth Circuit. I congratulate Judge Murguia and her family on her confirmation by the Senate today.

Mr. President, at long last, the Senate is being allowed to consider long-pending, consensus judicial nominations. This action has been long overdue. President Obama has reached out and worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle in selecting well-qualified judicial nominees. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have bent over backwards to be fair to all sides. There has been consultation and a thorough and fair process for evaluating nominations.

Scott M. Matheson is finally being confirmed to become a Federal circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In his 30-year legal career, he has been both a State and a Federal prosecutor, worked in private practice, and served on the faculty of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, including 8 years as the school's dean. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination on June 10, more than 6 months ago. We did so unanimously. The Republican Senators from Utah supported this nomination. It has still taken more than 6 months to get a Senate vote.

Ten years ago, Mary Murguia became the first Latina to serve as a Federal judge in Arizona when she was nominated by President Clinton to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She will now become the first Hispanic--and only the second woman--from Arizona to serve on the Ninth Circuit. The Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to report her nomination favorably more than 4 months ago. Judge Murguia's nomination was supported by her home State Senators, both Republicans. It has still taken more than 4 months to get a Senate vote.

Kathleen M. O'Malley has for the last 16 years served as a Federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio. When Judge O'Malley, a breast cancer survivor, was appointed to that court in 1994, she was one of the two youngest women on the Federal bench. She has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported her nomination to the Federal Circuit in September, 3 months ago. The Committee received a letter of support from Senator Voinovich, who urged an expeditious confirmation process. It has still taken 3 months to get a Senate vote.

The Senate is finally being allowed to fill some of the vacancies on the hard-pressed U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nominations of Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins back in September. It has taken 3 months to get Senate votes. The chief judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia wrote the Senate some time ago urging prompt action to fill the four vacancies that exist on that Court.

There was a time when having served for 10 years as a respected member of the Judiciary Committee staff would lead to expeditious consideration of a nomination. For example, when Kristi Lee Dubose of Alabama, who had served on Senator Sessions' Judiciary Committee staff, was nominated, her hearing was expedited despite the lack of an ABA peer review, her nomination was reported by the committee within 2 days of her hearing and that nomination was then confirmed promptly. Indeed, the time Judge Dubose's questionnaire was received by the committee to the date of her confirmation was 61 days, which includes a 3-week recess period.

By contrast, Ms. Howell's nomination was delayed after her hearing for 57 days before the committee was allowed to vote and has been stalled for 89 days on the Senate Executive Calendar. Since her questionnaire was received by the committee, it has been 160 days. This is no reflection on Ms. Howell, whose credentials, work experience, temperament, and qualifications are beyond reproach.

There are more than a dozen additional consensus judicial nominations that have been through the entire process but are being denied a final vote. I know of no precedent for this. Indeed, in the lameduck session at the end of President Bush's second year in office, we proceeded to report and confirm controversial circuit court nominees. That the Senate is not being allowed to consider these consensus nominees is a shame and an unnecessary burden on them and their families and for the courts and people they would serve. It is a travesty that all of the well-qualified nominees favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee could not be confirmed before this Congress adjourns. That is what we did when we confirmed 100 judicial nominees of President Bush in 2001 and 2002. All 100 of the nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee received Senate votes and were confirmed--all 100. They include 20 during the lameduck session that year and circuit court nominees reported after the election.

This year, consensus nominees are not being allowed to be considered. These nominees include one unanimously reported circuit court nominee and another circuit court nominee supported by 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee.

President Obama has nominated James E. Graves to fill one of two emergency vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. Currently, Justice Graves is the only African American on the Mississippi Supreme Court. If confirmed, he would be the second African American to sit on the Fifth Circuit, the first from Mississippi. His nomination has the strong support of both of his Republican home State Senators. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'', its highest possible rating. The Judiciary Committee reported him unanimously. Yet he is not being allowed a vote.

Susan Carney is nominated to fill one of 3 emergency vacancies on the Second Circuit. After working for 17 years in private practice, she served as associate general counsel of the Peace Corps, and she is currently the deputy general counsel of Yale University. Ms. Carney's nomination has the strong support of both of her home State Senators. Her nomination was reported with the support of five of the seven Republicans serving on the Judiciary Committee and by a vote of 17 to 2. She is not being allowed a vote.

There are 13 more district court nominees who were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee that the Senate is not being allowed to consider.

President Obama nominated Amy Totenberg to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in March. Ms. Totenberg's nomination has the support of her two Republican home state Senators. Currently a lawyer in private practice in Atlanta, she also serves as a special master for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and as a court-appointed mediator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Previously, she was general counsel to the Atlanta Board of Education and a part-time municipal court judge. She earned the highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified,'' from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Her nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

James E. Boasberg was nominated to fill another of the vacancies on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Since 2002, Judge Boasberg has served as a judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush. Previously, Judge Boasberg was a Federal prosecutor and an attorney in private practice. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him unanimously ``well qualified,'' its highest possible rating, to become a Federal judge. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Amy Berman Jackson was nominated to fill the other current vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia. Ms. Jackson is currently a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Trout Cacheris.? Previously, she was a partner in Venable's Washington, D.C., office, and she also served as a Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia. Ms. Jackson earned the highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified,'' from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Her nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

President Obama nominated James E. Shadid to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, a court that currently has only one active judge. Judge Shadid is currently a judge on the Tenth Judicial Circuit in Peoria County, IL. Previously, he was a sole practitioner in Peoria, a part- time commissioner on the Illinois Court of Claims, and a part-time assistant public defender in the Peoria County Public Defender's Office. When he was appointed to serve as a State judge, Judge Shadid became the first Arab-American judge in Illinois. He will become the only Federal Arab-American judge in the State and one of only approximately four Arab-American Federal judges in the country. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Sue E. Myerscough was also nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. She is currently the presiding justice on the Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois, and she previously sat on the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois, first as associate judge and then as circuit judge. In all, Justice Myerscough has more than 23 years of judicial experience. She also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Medical Humanities at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Justice Myerscough was first nominated to serve as a Federal judge in 1995, but her nomination was returned to the President after the Senate failed to act on it. Her nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

President Obama nominated Paul K. Holmes, III, to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Mr. Holmes is currently of counsel at the Fort Smith, AR, law firm where he formerly worked for more than two decades as an associate and a partner. Previously, he was the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. As U.S. attorney, Holmes served for 2 years on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Mr. Holmes earned the highest possible rating--unanimously ``well qualified''--from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and he has the strong support of his two home State Senators. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Anthony J. Battaglia was nominated to become a Federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the court he has served as a magistrate Judge for 17 years. He is a former president of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association and of the San Diego County Bar Association. Prior to taking the bench, Judge Battaglia worked for nearly two decades as a civil litigator in private practice. He has the strong support of both of his home State Senators, and the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him its highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified.'' His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Judge Edward J. Davila was nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Currently a judge on the Superior Court of California, Judge Davila previously spent 20 years as a trial lawyer, first as a deputy public defender in the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office and then as a lawyer in private practice. He also has taught trial advocacy course sessions at Stanford Law School, Santa Clara University School of Law, and the University of San Francisco School of Law. If confirmed, Judge Davila will become the first Latino to take the Federal bench in the Bay area in more than 15 years. He has the strong support of his two home State Senators. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

President Obama nominated Diana Saldana to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Texas, the district she has served as a magistrate judge since 2006. Before taking the bench, Judge Saldana served the Southern District for 5 years as a Federal prosecutor, and she previously was a lawyer in private practice and a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The child of migrant farm workers, Judge Saldana began working alongside her family in the sugar beet fields at age 10, and she continued to do so for more than a decade. After graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk to then-Chief Judge George P. Kazen. If confirmed, Judge Saldana will fill the vacancy created by Judge Kazen's retirement. Judge Saldana earned the highest possible rating--unanimously ``well qualified''--from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. She has the strong support of her two Republican home State Senators. Senator Cornyn called her ``one of the toughest law enforcers in South Texas,'' and Senator Hutchison added that Judge Saldana ``has some of the finest qualities we expect in our judges.'' Her nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Max O. Cogburn was nominated to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the district that he previously served for 9 years as a magistrate judge and for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Cogburn is currently a partner in the Asheville, NC, law firm, Cogburn and Brazil, and he also serves as an appointed member of the North Carolina Education Lottery Commission. In addition to practicing law, Mr. Cogburn owns and maintains with his siblings the Pisgah View Ranch, a dude ranch that has been in his family for generations. Mr. Cogburn has the strong, bipartisan support of his two home State Senators, a Republican and a Democrat. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Marco A. Hernandez was nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. He has served as a judge in Oregon's 20th Judicial District for the last 15 years, first on the district court and now as a circuit court judge. Previously, Judge Hernandez was a deputy district attorney in Washington County, OR, and a lawyer for Oregon Legal Services. Judge Hernandez has the strong support of his two home State Senators, and he has now been nominated to this position by Presidents of both parties. If confirmed, he will become the first Latino to serve as a Federal Judge in Oregon. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I also note that Senator Sessions made quite a fuss that he was not confirmed at the end of the Bush administration while Senator Sessions proceeded to delay Committee consideration of his nomination and while Republicans still refuse to allow it to be considered before adjournment.

President Obama nominated Steve Jones to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. For the last 15 years, Judge Jones has been a superior court judge in the Tenth Superior Court District of Georgia, and he currently serves that district as the presiding judge on the Felony Drug Court as well. Previously, he was a judge on the Athens-Clarke County Municipal Court and an assistant district attorney for the Western Judicial Circuit. Judge Jones was the first African American to serve the Western Judicial Circuit as a superior court judge. He will be the only active African-American judge on the Northern District of Georgia and one of only two active African-American judges in the State. Judge Jones earned the highest possible rating--unanimously ``well qualified''-- from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and he has the strong support of his two Republican home State Senators. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

Michael Simon was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. He is currently a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP, where he serves as head of the litigation practice at the Portland office. In that capacity, Mr. Simon has handled

several high-profile first amendment cases on a pro-bono basis. Before joining that firm, Mr. Simon was a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Simon has the strong support of his two home State Senators. His nomination was reported by the Committee with strong bipartisan support.

These consensus nominees are in addition to the other highly qualified nominations on which the Senate has not been allowed to vote for many months.

Mr. President, as we approach the end of another year--and the end of the 111th Congress--millions of Americans continue to face growing threats to their privacy and security because of data security breaches involving their most sensitive personal information. Last year, I reintroduced the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act--a bipartisan and comprehensive bill that will better protect Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. I am disappointed that the Senate will adjourn for the year without considering this important privacy legislation.

This long overdue privacy bill would establish a national standard for breach notification and requirements for securing Americans' most sensitive personal data. The bill--as improved by my manager's amendment--strikes the right balance to protect privacy, promote commerce, and successfully combat identity theft. I urged the Senate to consider and pass this important privacy legislation before we adjourn for the year. Despite its bipartisan approval by the Judiciary Committee, the ranking Republican is objecting and refusing to allow the Senate to proceed.

When I first introduced this bill 6 years ago, I had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. I have worked closely with both Republican and Democratic Senators since to enact this important privacy legislation. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill three times--in 2005, 2007, and yet again in 2009--it remains stalled on the Senate Calendar. While the Senate has waited to act, the dangers to our privacy, economic prosperity, and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away.

The recently reported cyber attacks in response to the WikiLeaks disclosures are fresh reminders of the urgent need to have national standards to protect the privacy of America's digital information. In June, the insurance company WellPoint, Inc., announced that 470,000 individuals who used the company's Web site to apply for insurance may have unwittingly exposed their Social Security numbers and other sensitive data to the public. Just last month, the University of Hawaii suffered a major data breach involving sensitive student data, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, names, and grades. And a recent data breach at the Department of Veterans Affairs resulted in the unauthorized release of the Social Security numbers and other personal information of at least 180 of our veterans. These troubling data breaches are painful reminders of the need to enact comprehensive Federal data privacy legislation this year.

This bill offers meaningful solutions to the vexing problem of data security breaches. It requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them and to allow individuals to correct inaccurate information. The bill also requires that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs.

In addition, the bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The bill provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. Finally, the bill addresses the important issue of the government's use of personal data.

I am pleased that the Obama administration has recently issued two privacy reports that make recommendations to improve data privacy that are consistent with the approach adopted in my bill.

I drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection, and business communities. I have also worked closely with other Senators, including Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Feingold, Specter, and Schumer.

This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. The House of Representatives has passed comprehensive data privacy legislation. The Senate should also pass comprehensive data privacy legislation and should have done so this Congress.

There has been ample time to resolve any concerns, but still there are those who are refusing to allow the Senate to act. We cannot afford to continue to wait to address this important privacy issue. The American people are suffering the consequences of that inaction.

I want to say a few words about one of the highly qualified nominees belatedly confirmed by the Senate today. Beryl Howell has been confirmed to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the District of Columbia. Many of us on the Judiciary Committee remember her from the 10 years she served as my general counsel and as one of the most effective members of our Judiciary Committee staff. With her background as a highly decorated Federal prosecutor, she worked on issues ranging from criminal justice and national security, to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and the No Electronic Theft Act. She worked on the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act and the computer fraud and abuse statute, and on important oversight matters including the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan hearings on Ruby Ridge that led to improvements at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. She also played important roles in electronic freedom of information initiatives, which earned her induction into the Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame.

When I had the chance to introduce Ms. Howell to the committee at her hearing in July, I discussed her impressive background before she joined the committee staff. She grew up in a proud military family. She was awarded her undergraduate degree with honors in philosophy from Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania, and earned her law degree at Columbia University School of Law, where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. She clerked for Judge Dickinson Debevoise on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Having worked as a student assistant in a U.S. Attorney's Office, she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York in 1987, working there almost 6 years, rising to be the Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section. Her grand jury investigations and prosecutions included complex public corruption, narcotics, and money laundering cases.

Descriptions of her cases read like crime novels. She successfully prosecuted the leadership of a Chinatown gang, called the Flying Dragons, for heroin trafficking, and extradited the head of the gang after he fled to Hong Kong. She successfully prosecuted a group of Colombian drug dealers and arrested the gang members just as they were packing almost $20 million in cash from narcotics proceeds into a hidden compartment of a truck to smuggle it out of the country. Then some of these defendants attempted a prison escape by bribing officials, and she successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the escape plan. She also handled the successful investigation and prosecution of over 20 corrupt New York City building inspectors engaged in extortion.

Ms. Howell's work was recognized by her twice being awarded the U.S. Attorney Special Achievement Award for Sustained Superior Performance, by commendations from the FBI, DEA, and the New York City Department of Investigation, and ultimately by the prestigious Attorney General's Director's Award for Superior Performance. I always felt lucky to have hired her.

Ms. Howell's career since she left us 7 years ago has been equally impressive. She established the Washington, DC, office of a consulting and technical services firm specializing in digital forensics, computer fraud, and abuse investigations as the Executive Managing Director and general counsel of Stroz Friedberg. While in the private sector, she received the FBI Director's Award for her work assisting in a Government cyber-extortion investigation.

Ms. Howell has twice been confirmed by the Senate to serve as a member of the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission, to which she was appointed by President Bush. She contributed to the Sentencing Commission report that led to our breakthrough this year with Senate passage of historic legislation that Senator Durbin crafted to end sentencing disparities, the Fair Sentencing Act.

She and her husband have raised their three children in the District and are long-time citizens here. That involvement, her public service background, and her steadfast commitment to justice make her an ideal nominee. I commend President Obama for choosing to nominate her. I thank the committee for acting to favorably report her nomination unanimously in September. I am glad the Senate has now followed suit and confirmed her unanimously to serve all the people of the District of Columbia fairly and impartially as a U.S. district court judge.

Madam President, as the 111th Congress draws to a close, Senate Republicans have finally consented to consider half of the judicial nominations that have been pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar, some for nearly a year, awaiting a final Senate vote. We began with 38 judicial nominees to be considered and the Senate is being prevented from voting on 19. These are all superbly qualified nominees, most were reported with bipartisan support and many unanimously. Thirteen of these nominations on which we are not being allowed to vote are to fill judicial emergency vacancies, as determined by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Yet for month after month, many of these nominations have been stalled, just languishing before the Senate as Senate Republicans refused to consent to moving forward. Congress will adjourn for the year without completing its work on these nominations.

Senate Republicans' strategy of delaying and blocking judicial nominations across the board has led to judicial vacancies nearly doubling over the last 2 years. Vacancies remain at nearly 100 with more than 40 judicial emergencies. The Republican leadership was unmoved by pleas from the President, the Attorney General, two Supreme Court Justices, the President of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, retired Federal judges, current chief judges and Federal prosecutors calling on the Senate to address the growing vacancies crisis. They disregarded the pleas to end the senseless delays and needless blockade of consensus nominations and to vote whether to confirm the nominations sent forward by the Senate Judiciary Committee to fill the vacancies in the Federal courts.

Each of the judicial nominations now before the Senate will upon adjournment be returned to the President, the vacancy will remain, and the confirmation process will have to start over next year. Just a few years ago Senate Republicans were united in demanding that every nomination reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate deserved a vote. They argued that was our constitutional duty. Well, the Constitution has not been amended. The only thing that has changed is that the American people changed Presidents.

In 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported 100 judicial nominees of President Bush. I was the chairman. We did not adjourn in 2002 until we had given a vote to every one of those 100 nominees and confirmed them. I did not support all of them but I did not prevent those votes. I worked to fill the vacancies on the Federal courts. That was with a Democratic majority in the Senate. All 100 were considered before the end of the 107th Congress, including two controversial circuit court nominations reported and then confirmed during the lameduck session in 2002, after the midterm elections.

This Congress the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, considered and was able to favorably report 80 nominees to Federal circuit and district court vacancies. Only 60 have been allowed Senate votes. This is a historically low number and percentage for the first two years of a new Presidency. Last year only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges were confirmed. It was the lowest number in more than 50 years. This year the Senate has been allowed to consider fewer than 50 judicial nominees. That has led to the lowest confirmation total for the first 2 years of a new Presidency in 35 years. And this is taking place during a period when Federal judicial vacancies have doubled.

By nearly every measure--the number of nominees confirmed, the percentage of nominees confirmed, the pace of nominees being considered on the floor, the skyrocketing vacancy numbers--the results are dismal. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration, Democrats in the Senate worked to consider and confirm 100 judicial nominees. During the first two years of the Obama administration,

Senate Republicans have limited Federal circuit and district court confirmations to 60. They were delayed on average six times longer than it took President Bush's judicial nominees to be considered by the Senate.

Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy they used during the Clinton administration, when they pocket filibustered more than 60 of his judicial nominations, leading to a vacancy crisis. Their years of refusing to proceed on President Clinton's nominations led Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative appointed by Republican Presidents, to chastise them for failing to address the needs of the Federal judiciary. In those days, Federal judicial vacancies rose to more than 110 by the end of the Clinton administration, a historically high vacancy number. Current across the board delays eventuated in 111 Federal court vacancies this year.

When Democrats regained the Senate majority halfway into President Bush's first year in office, we reported and confirmed 100 judicial nominees during the 17 months I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress. We continued to work cooperatively to make progress on nominations whether in the majority or the minority for the rest of President Bush's administration. As a result, overall judicial vacancies were reduced during the Bush years from more than 10 percent to less than four percent. During the Bush years, the Federal court vacancies were reduced from 110 to 34 and Federal circuit court vacancies were reduced from a high of 32 down to single digits.

This progress has not continued once the American people elected President Obama. Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy of across-the-board delays and obstruction of the President's judicial nominations, again leading to skyrocketing vacancies. Last year the Senate confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges, the lowest total in 50 years. This year we confirmed less than 50 more Federal circuit and district judges. That has led to the lowest confirmation total for the first 2 years of a new Presidency in 35 years. We are not even keeping up with retirements and attrition. As a result, judicial vacancies rose again over 110 again this year.

The Senate's Republican leadership seems determined to end the Congress as it began it, obstructing President Obama's judicial nominations. In November 2009, the Senate confirmed Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit after rejecting a Republican filibuster of President Obama's first judicial nomination. Judge Hamilton was no radical. He had the support of the Senate's senior Republican, the senior Senator from Indiana. He had served nearly 15 years on the Federal bench. Rather than welcome the nomination as an effort by President Obama to step away from the ideological battles of the past, Senate Republicans ignored Senator Lugar's support, distorting Judge Hamilton's record and filibustering his nomination. Republican Senators who had recently pledged never to filibuster a judicial nominee and those who had said they would do so only under extraordinary circumstances reversed themselves and joined the partisan filibuster. Republican Senators who just a few years earlier had proclaimed such filibusters unconstitutional also joined. They abandoned all they had said and filibustered a preacher's son and fine judge who was known to and supported by his respected Republican home State Senator.

In filibustering President Obama's first judicial nomination, Senate Republicans also ignored the standard they had set in a letter they sent to President Obama before he had made a single judicial nomination. In that letter, they threatened to filibuster any nomination made without consultation. Despite the fact that President Obama has reached across the aisle to consult, as he did with Senator Lugar of Indiana, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed judicial nominations virtually across the board.

Delays and obstruction of Senate consideration has attended virtually all of well-qualified judicial nominees. Contrary to their statements during the Bush administration that every judicial nomination reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee was entitled to an up-or-down vote, Senate Republicans have refused consent for up-or-down votes on nominee after nominee. Since the filibuster of Judge Hamilton, they have required the Majority Leader to file cloture on other highly qualified circuit court nominees, indeed on a quarter of the 16 circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider.

No Senator could claim the circumstances surrounding the filibusters of President Obama's circuit court nominations to be extraordinary. Republicans filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan, a nominee with nearly 30 years of judicial experience, and the first woman to hold a number of important judicial roles in Virginia. She was then confirmed 99-0 as the first woman from Virginia to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. They filibustered the nomination of Judge Thomas Vanaskie, whose 16 years of a experience as a Federal district court judge in Pennsylvania are now being put to good use on the Third Circuit. They filibustered Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit, who also had 16 years of experience as a Federal district court judge. He is now the only active Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, and his nomination was confirmed unanimously.

Senate Republicans' tactics reached a new low as they obstructed consideration of district court nominations. The blockade of these nominations is a dramatic departure from the traditional practice of considering district court nominations expeditiously and with deference to home state Senators. Among these nominations were Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, and John McConnell of Rhode Island. These nominees were reported by the Committee several times with strong support from their home State Senators who know the nominees and the needs of the courts in their States best. All three were pending for months on the Senate Calendar. In fact, Justice Butler and Judge Chen were first reported by the Judiciary Committee over a year ago. Obstruction of these district court nominations is unprecedented.

Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Out of these 2,100 nominees, only 5 have been reported by party-line votes, and 4 of the 5 occurred in this Congress. Less than 20 of the 2,100 nominees faced any opposition in Committee. Since 1949, cloture motions have been filed on only three district court nominations. All three nominations were confirmed, and in fact two of the cloture petitions were withdrawn. This year Republican opposition to the Butler, Chen and McConnell nominations would have required clotures on all three, meaning that in 1 year they would have matched the number of cloture motions filed on district court nominees over the past 62 years.

These nominees are outstanding Americans who do us a great service by their willingness to serve on our Federal courts. Justice Louis Butler, Jr., was nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. He has 16 years of judicial experience at the municipal and State court level and was the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He has the strong support of both of his home State Senators and he earned the highest possible rating, unanimously well qualified, from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association,

Mr. President, I strongly support the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The evidence and the logic for an alternate engine easily overwhelm the flawed arguments that have been used to attack it. Investments in fighter engine competition will reduce costs over the life of the F-35 program. Not only will competition cost less than a single engine monopoly; competition also forces contractors to be more responsive and reliable. And the F-35 will comprise a vast percentage of the U.S. strike aircraft fleet. With just one engine, our national security would rest on a single point of failure. Sole-sourcing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine is simply

the wrong decision for our country, and I am glad that the continuing resolution will preserve funding for this program through March.

Though misinformation has been spread about the costs of the alternate engine, multiple nonpartisan reports suggest that it is highly likely to save taxpayer dollars. According to Government Accountability Office testimony, the Congress can reasonably expect to recoup investment costs over the life of the program. If the so-called ``Great Engine War'' of the F-16 program is any example, the F-35 alternate engine might even yield 30 percent cumulative savings for acquisition, 16 percent savings in operations and support, and 21 percent savings over the life cycle of the aircraft. Not only would we sacrifice these potential savings by killing the F-35 alternate engine program, but that decision would waste the investment we have already made in a competitive second engine. Ending fighter engine competition for the F-35 is pound foolish without even being penny wise.

GAO also points to several possible nonfinancial benefits of engine competition, including better system performance, increased reliability and improved contractor responsiveness. News reports about the broader F-35 program reveal what happens when we sole-source crucial large, multiyear defense programs. The F-35 faces a range of unanticipated problems, delays and cost overruns. Even the independent panel on the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review--led by President Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Perry, and President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley--strongly advocated dual-source competition in major defense programs. Without competition, the American people will keep paying more and more to buy less and less.

Without competition, our country's strike aircraft would be one engine problem away from fleet-wide grounding. Putting all of our eggs in the single engine basket would elevate risks to our troops and their missions. Imagine our soldiers in Afghanistan stranded without air support simply because we were not wise enough to diversify the program to avoid engine-based groundings. With their lives on the line, we cannot afford to be irresponsible with this program.

The continuing resolution appropriately maintains funding for the alternate engine program. It does not allow for so-called new starts, but neither does it bring programs to a premature end without the debate and full consideration here in the Congress that they deserve. The alternate engine program will rightly continue, and I expect that when programs receive scrutiny during budget consideration next spring, the same will also be the case.

Ensuring engine competition is the right thing to do because it is the smart thing to do. Although some have stressed the up-front costs, taxpayers stand to save more money over the life of the F-35 program by maintaining competitive alternatives. Most importantly, we will purchase a better and more reliable product for the people who risk their lives to defend our country. I will continue to support engine competition that ensures the best product for the troops at the best price for the taxpayer.

No, go ahead.

Mr. President, President Obama nominated William J. Martinez to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District of Colorado last February. Mr. Martinez is a well-respected legal practitioner in Denver who has the strong support of both of his home State Senators. The statements earlier today from Senator Udall and Senator

Bennet were compelling. They have been steadfast, forthright and exceedingly patient. I wholeheartedly agree with them that Bill Martinez should now, at long last, be confirmed. When he is, he will become only the second Hispanic to serve Colorado as a district court judge.

The Judiciary Committee favorably reported his nomination over 8 months ago, on April 15. It has been delayed ever since. In May we received a letter from the chief judge of the District of Colorado, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, urging us to confirm Mr. Martinez because without additional judges ``it is impossible for the court to possess the judicial resources that are necessary to effectively discharge the business of the court.'' Despite that plea from the chief judge of the district, the Senate has not been allowed to consider this nomination until today.

This is another example of the unnecessary delays that have led to a judicial vacancies crisis throughout the country. Judicial vacancies have skyrocketed to over 100 while nominations are forced to languish without final Senate action. In fact, President Obama's nominees have been forced to wait on average six times longer to be considered than President Bush's judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee during the first 2 years of his Presidency.

I still do not understand why this nomination was subjected to a party-line vote before the Judiciary Committee. I recall all the Bush nominees who were members of the Federalist Society and other conservative litigation centers who were confirmed just a few years ago. Can it be that some are seeking to apply a conservative activist ideological litmus test and discount Mr. Martinez' qualifications and work experience?

Our ranking Republican Senator, Senator Sessions, reflected on the confirmation process last year, saying:

What I found was that charges come flying in from right and

left that are unsupported and false. It's very, very

difficult for a nominee to push back. So I think we have a

high responsibility to base any criticisms that we have on a

fair and honest statement of the facts and that nominees

should not be subjected to distortions of their record.

I listened closely to the Senator's statement against Mr. Martinez but heard nothing about anything Mr. Martinez had done or even any position taken by the Colorado ACLU in which Mr. Martinez was involved. There was nothing on which to base opposition to this qualified nominee. Certainly not the ``gotcha'' questions he was asked months ago.

More than two dozen Federal circuit and district court nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee still await a final Senate vote. These include 17 nominations reported unanimously and another 2 reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of no votes. These nominations should have been confirmed within days of being reported. In addition, 15 nominations ready for final action are to fill judicial emergency vacancies. With judicial vacancies at historic highs, we should act on these nominations. During President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to votes on all 100 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. That included controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lameduck session after the election in 2002. In contrast, during the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, the Senate has considered just 55 of the 80 judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Adding to the letters we have received recently urging us to take action to fill vacancies is one sent this week to the Senate leaders by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, a group of career prosecutors. John E. Nordin, vice president for membership and operations, writes:

Judicial vacancies in our federal courts are reaching

historic highs. Our members--career federal prosecutors who

appear daily in federal courts across the nation--are

concerned by the increasing number of vacancies on the

federal bench. These vacancies increasingly are contributing

to greater caseloads and workload burdens upon the remaining

federal judges. Our federal courts cannot function

effectively when judicial vacancies restrain the ability to

render swift and sure justice.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. It concludes, ``[w]e believe that all judicial nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee are deserving of a prompt up-or-down floor vote.'' I agree with these career Federal prosecutors who understand the vital importance of functioning courts and rely on them every day. It is time for the Senate to act on the dozens of judicial nominees that have been stalled from final consideration before we adjourn.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is finally considering a judicial nomination that has been stalled since February on the Executive Calendar. The nomination of Benita Y. Pearson to serve on the Northern District of Ohio was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee more than 10 months ago. Judge Pearson is currently a Federal magistrate judge on the court to which she is nominated. When confirmed, she will become the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal judge in Ohio.

I have reviewed the record and considered the character, background and qualifications of the nominee and join with the Senators from Ohio, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, in supporting this nominee. Frankly, the opposition is a dramatic departure from the traditional practice of considering district court nominations with deference to the home State Senators that know the nominees and their districts best. I commend Senator Brown on his statement in support of the nomination today. As he noted, he worked closely with Senator Voinovich, the Republican Senator from his State and a judicial screening commission in making this recommendation to the President.

The obstruction of these district court nominations is unprecedented, a sign that a different standard is being applied to President Obama's nominees that has never before been applied to the nominees of any President, Democratic or Republican. Out of the 2,100 district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee since 1945, only five have been reported by party-line votes. Four of these party-line votes have been in this Congress, including the two of the nominations we consider today. In fact only 19 of those 2,100 nominees were reported by any type of split rollcall vote at all, but five of them--more than 25 percent of the total--have been this Congress.

The party-line vote against this nomination in the Judiciary Committee was without explanation. Judge Pearson has been a Federal judge magistrate for 8 years and a prosecutor before that. Nothing in her professional background justifies the delay or opposition to this nomination.

At her hearing, there were some who tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill with respect to a statement she made about animals. I just worked

with Senator Kyl and Senator Merkley on a constitutional, legal prohibition against vicious videos that show animals being crushed. That bill passed unanimously. No Senators thought twice about approving that important legislation. I remember a couple of years ago when a famous professional football player went to prison for his participation in a dog fighting ring. Many Americans were outraged by those activities and no Senator questioned the State and Federal laws against such activities. Are those who oppose this nomination also now opposed to the Humane Society of the United States and to the legislative actions we took since they involved animals?

I join the Senators from Ohio in urging the Senate to confirm Judge Pearson without further delay.

Mr. President, I would like nothing better than to vote on the judges. We have a number of them who came out unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. My friends from the other side are not even allowing votes on them.

We did not do that to President Bush in his first 2 years.

Madam President, I want to take a minute to call attention to a humanitarian disaster that has received only passing mention in the international press and which many Senators may be unaware of.

On December 7, Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos declared a state of ``economic, social and ecologic emergency'' as a result of massive flooding which he called a ``public calamity.''

Heavy rains over a period of months have caused landslides that have swept away homes and rivers to overflow their banks, and now large areas of the country are inundated with water. According to a December 17 report by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs which is assisting the Colombian government, so far 2.1 million people have been affected by the flooding, 270 have died, 62 are missing, and more than 300,000 houses have been damaged or destroyed. Thousands of miles of roads have been obstructed, damaged or destroyed.

Twenty-eight of the country's 32 departments, which comprise 61 percent of the country, have been affected. President Santos said the number of homeless from the flooding could reach 2 million, and that ``the tragedy the country is going through has no precedents in our history.'' What's worse, the rains are expected to continue through next June.

I do not have to remind anyone here of our close relationship with Colombia. I also know Colombia has emergency response capabilities which may not exist in remote areas of other countries similarly affected by severe flooding or other natural disasters, such as Pakistan. I was pleased to learn that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has people in Colombia because the devastation is on a scale more massive than any developing country could deal with alone. There may also be other ways we can provide assistance.

I also use this opportunity to note what appears to be the growing number and intensity of natural disasters around the world that are straining the international community's emergency response capabilities. While no single weather event can be definitively attributed to climate change, scientists have long predicted an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events as a result of global warming. They also predict that as many as 200 million people could be displaced by natural disasters and climate change by 2050. That would cause incalculable havoc for many countries.

President Santos, who to his credit has been out in the countryside with people who have lost family members, homes and, in many cases, everything they own, said he canceled his trip to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancun so he could deal with the devastation that climate change is causing in his own country. Pakistani government officials likewise blamed climate change for the massive floods there that have affected more than 20 million people over the past several months.

Whatever the cause, and there isn't time today to discuss my views about the role that deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels play in global warming, the world's climate is unquestionably changing. And a disproportionate number of recent climate related disasters has occurred in the world's poorest countries where most people's lives depend on agriculture. They have seen their homes destroyed, crops drowned in water and buried in mud, and what few possessions they have swept away. Other countries have suffered years of drought, and water sources that have sustained life for centuries have dried up. In as little as 25 years, glaciers that millions of people and their livestock depend on for drinking water have shrunk to a fraction of their size.

These issues are going to occupy our time and severely tax our resources for the foreseeable future, and we and other countries urgently need to develop plans to try to prevent and adapt to climate change and to respond when disaster strikes.

I am encouraged that there is a new field of research specifically focused on better understanding, preventing and responding to large scale displacement of people as a result of climate change and natural disasters. Nongovernmental and international organizations are working to develop strategies to protect the world's most vulnerable people from this growing threat. We need to support this and work together.

I commend President Santos who has not only helped to alert the world to a catastrophe that had previously gone largely unnoticed outside his country, but who has taken other important steps in his first months of office that have won the respect and support of the Colombian people. His efforts to diffuse tensions with Colombia's neighbors, to begin tackling head on the daunting economic, social and judicial challenges facing Colombia, and to appoint several top officials who have the necessary qualifications and integrity, are admirable.

After a decade of Plan Colombia, U.S.-Colombia relations are entering a new phase. While there will likely continue to be issues about which we disagree, I look forward to working with President Santos and his government on a wide range of issues of mutual interest and concern.