Floor Statements

Madam President, as we approach the end of this Congress we are saying goodbye to people with whom we have been privileged to serve over the past years. We often talk about Senators who have completed their terms. In that regard, a number of my friends will be leaving the Senate and I am making statements about them.

Today, I want to talk about a woman who has served the Senate and the American people for three decades, and whose career sets a high standard of professionalism and public service that inspires countless others. She was not elected to serve as a Senator, but she has been essential to the work of the Senate for a number of years.

Lula Johnson Davis began her Senate career as a legislative correspondent for Senator Russell Long of Louisiana. She later worked for the Democratic Policy Committee. In 1993, she became a key member of our Democratic floor staff The floor staff is critical to the proper functioning of the Senate.

They advise Senators on floor procedure and help keep the Senate operating within the formal Senate Rules and the informal Senate practices that honor our traditions of courtesy and civility. When Senators are not bollixing up the proceedings, the floor staff facilitates the business of the Senate.

They are the unseen and unrecognized teachers for new Senators. They help guide all of us through Senate consideration and voting on every measure that comes before this body.

She leaves the Senate having started as a legislative correspondent and having risen to become the Secretary of the Majority of the U.S. Senate.

Through the decade of the 1990s and this first decade of the new century, as the assistant secretary and now secretary, it has been this woman from Louisiana who has helped guide the Senate. We each, Senators on both sides of the aisle, owe her our gratitude. She is a professional who helps set the right tone for all of us--Senators, staff, and pages.

The young people, high school students from around the country, who continue their studies while serving as Senate pages for a semester or a summer are another group of beneficiaries of Lula' s tutelage. She is a tough but fair taskmaster. Democratic pages learn that every job, no matter how small, needs to be done right.

They learn lessons that will serve them throughout their lives. She has been a mentor, friend and role model to hundreds of youngsters from around the country over the years. At the end of their tour of duty, they appreciate what she has given them and, I hope, share her respect for the Senate.

She has never failed to fulfill her duties as she has steadfastly served with a succession of Democratic leaders. In truth, she has served not just the Democratic Senate caucus but the Senate and the country.

I will miss Lula Davis and wanted to say how much I appreciate all she has done for each of us.

Mr. President, today the Senate will pass a measure to help State sentencing commissions make responsible decisions. The legislation we pass today will give State sentencing commissions, like that in Vermont, access to criminal history data in the possession of the Attorney General. This will facilitate the study of recidivism rates and other important factors affecting public safety.

We all want to reduce crime and keep our neighborhoods safe, and, in these hard fiscal times, we must do so effectively and efficiently. It is important for State sentencing commissions to have access to data so they can properly study aggravating and mitigating factors in criminal cases and in return, better inform policy makers. This bill will help ensure that sentencing decisions are data-driven, using the best possible universe of information.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the senior Senator from New York.

Mr. President, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Carlton W. Reeves to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Currently a partner in a Jackson, MI, law firm, Mr. Reeves is a former Federal prosecutor. Both of his Republican home State Senators, Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker, introduced Mr. Reeves at his confirmation hearing, and they emphasized his outstanding reputation in the Jackson legal community, as well as the bipartisan nature of the Mississippi delegation's support for this fine nominee. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination on August 5 with the support of all but 1 of its 19 members. That was more than 4 months ago. Senate consideration and confirmation of his nomination has been delayed for months with for no good reason. When he is finally confirmed, Mr. Reeves will become only the second African-American Federal district judge in Mississippi. He will fulfill the pledge made by President Bush that went unfilled.

After the confirmations today, there remain more than two dozen Federal circuit and district court nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee, most of the unanimously, also ready for consideration and a final vote. The practice used to be for the Senate to confirm and confirm consensus nominees within days of their being favorably considered by the Judiciary Committee, certainly those reported without opposition. No longer. Courtrooms are being kept vacant for months and months while justice is, at best, delayed.

During the first 2 years of the administration of President George W. Bush, a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to vote on 100 of his judicial nominations. That included controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lameduck session in 2002. In contrast, during this first Congress of President Obama's administration, the Senate has been allowed to consider just over 50 of the 80 nominations fully considered and reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee.

I congratulate Mr. Reeves and his family on his confirmation today. This day was a long time coming.

Mr. President, earlier this week, Republican Members who had pledged to support the fiscal year 2011 Omnibus appropriations bill changed their minds and chose instead to walk in lockstep with the House and Senate Republican leaders who believe that freezing spending at the fiscal year 2010 level is good politics.

On the face of it that approach has an appeal to it--no new spending. What a nice sound bite. It makes everything seem so simple.

But while one Senator of the minority party gleefully remarked on the Senate floor ``we won,'' it is worth taking a minute to consider what a continuing resolution means--not for the Republican Party but for the American people.

That it is a short-sighted abdication of Congress's responsibility over Federal funding almost goes without saying. But in fact it is worse than that.

The Senators who profess to care about the security of this country but refuse to put their money where their mouth is, bear responsibility for the consequences.

Every American family--yours and mine--knows that in a year's time our budget priorities and the necessities of our families change from the year before. So do the budget priorities of a diverse country of more than 300 million people in a rapidly changing and dangerous world.

Those who celebrated after defeating the Omnibus--a bill that is supported by a majority of Senators--are implicitly promoting the myth that priorities and circumstances do not change from one year to the next.

They would substitute the mindlessness of a copy machine for the judgment that the American people pay their representatives to use in making these decisions.

A robo budget is a disservice to the American people, to our national security, and to this Nation's needs and interests here at home. Yet that is the option we are left with.

What is our job here? Is it to rubberstamp what we did last year, despite different circumstances and the passage of a year's time? I won't speak for the chairs of the other Appropriations subcommittees.

They know the consequences of a continuing resolution for the programs in their jurisdictions better than I.

But as chairman of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I can say unequivocally that freezing spending for global security programs--as we are about to do--will shortchange the American people--this generation and future generations, compromise the security of this country, and cost the lives of countless people in the world's poorest countries.

Contrary to what some of our friends in the minority seem not to fully appreciate, the United States is a global power. We have vital interests around the world, from the Korean Peninsula to Mexico, that are important to the lives and livelihoods of every American.

We are involved in two wars, with over 150,000 troops deployed in harm's way--wars that will not be won by military force alone.

Our economy is tied to the economies of countries far and wide. Our security depends on what happens thousands of miles from our shores, as much as it does at our borders.

Americans are traveling, working, studying and living in every country on Earth. We have diplomats and military personnel stationed on every continent.

Our environment, the health of our citizens, the security of our borders, and relations with our allies as well as our adversaries, are not static. Time does not stand still. It marches on, either with us or without us.

What the other party is saying is that while China and our other competitors aggressively expand their influence, the United States will pull back. While other countries become global markets, we will freeze our export promotion programs.

While international terrorism, trans-national crime and corruption threaten American businesses and fragile democracies, including in our own hemisphere, we will retrench.

That is the vision of the minority. It is myopic. It is self- defeating. It pretends to help solve the deficit, when in fact it will have virtually no impact on the deficit. But it will weaken our influence around the world.

In contrast, the Omnibus appropriations bill that was abandoned 3 nights ago would have cut spending below the President's budget request by some $29 billion, as our Republican friends insisted just a few short months ago. Then they moved the goal posts.

And 3 nights ago they walked off the playing field altogether, when those who said they would support it changed their minds--or had their minds changed for them.

The Omnibus would have cut the budget for the Department of State and Foreign Operations by $3.2 billion below the President's request.

The funding for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which represents 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--is a far cry from what we should be allocating to protect America's interests.

Fifty years from now I suspect our grandchildren or great- grandchildren will look back and wonder why we were so penny wise and pound foolish, when so much was at stake.

But if one asks which would be better for our national security, a continuing resolution or the Omnibus; or which would be better for protecting America's interests in the global economy; or which would be better for strengthening our alliances and improving our image around the world? There is no comparison.

Let me cite a few examples.

The Omnibus would have funded global health programs, including vaccines and nutrition for children, maternal health, and programs to prevent or treat infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, West Nile, the Asian Flu, and drug-resistant tuberculosis.

These and as yet unknown viruses can become raging pandemics overnight. They can spread across the globe to our shores with the ease of an airplane flight.

The other party may not want to talk about cutting these programs. But when there is an outbreak of a deadly disease like the Asian flu that could endanger the lives of millions of Americans, we can predict they will demand to know what the State Department is doing about it.

It won't matter that they just cut the budget for disease surveillance and prevention.

At a time when there are more than 7,000 new HIV infections each day, a continuing resolution will reduce the U.S. contribution to the Global HIV/AIDS fund by $75 million. That will almost certainly cause other donors to reduce their contributions too. Millions of people who need drugs to stay alive, won't get them.

The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which is a cornerstone of our partnership with the Pakistani Armed Forces in fighting al-Qaida, will be cut by $300 million in a continuing resolution. It makes no sense.

A continuing resolution will cut funding by more than $700 million for agriculture and food security programs, small business development, clean water, energy, basic education, trade capacity, and other priorities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as of American businesses, universities, and other organizations that implement these programs.

There are thousands of American diplomats stationed in almost every country of the world, assisting American citizens and businesses, defending our interests and our security. They risk their lives in countries where Americans are targeted, and many have lost their lives in the line of duty.

A continuing resolution will provide half a billion dollars less than the Omnibus would have for the State Department's overseas operations, including for Afghanistan and Pakistan, requiring cuts to personnel, information technology, and public diplomacy programs that counter extremist propaganda and other misinformation about the United States.

How, in the world, does that make sense? Will anyone advocating this recklessness come forward to explain it to the American people? Apparently not. Better to declare ``we won,'' and hope the public never finds out that they lost.

A continuing resolution will cut funding for U.S. Embassy security, construction, and maintenance programs, delaying the completion of new facilities to replace the most vulnerable embassies in some of the most dangerous locations.

Security costs money, but the minority will cut these programs. Any delay in the completion of these facilities will extend the risks to American diplomats, consular officers, and other personnel overseas.

A continuing resolution will cut funding for educational and cultural exchange programs--programs that Republicans have claimed to strongly support. That means thousands fewer participants in exchange programs, including those from Muslim-majority countries and Muslim communities worldwide, and a corresponding retreat for our national security interests.

A continuing resolution will cut hundreds of millions of dollars for clean technology and other programs to reduce global warming. Whatever one may think about climate change, 95 percent of new births are occurring in the world's poorest countries, where the demand for energy is exploding. The environmental consequences of this exponential growth in energy consumption are staggering, and we ignore it at our peril.

There are dozens of other examples, but the point is simple. The other party may think this is good politics at home, but it represents a dereliction of duty.

It will have no appreciable impact on the deficit. In fact, over time, it is just as likely to cost the taxpayers more. But most important, the Omnibus, while billions of dollars below the President's budget request, would have at least enabled us to not lose ground.

We would have at least been able to respond to new threats as they develop.

We would have at least been able to continue the effort started by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and strongly supported by Secretary of Defense Gates, to build the diplomatic corps we need.

We would have at least been able to compete in new and emerging export markets. We would have at least been able to maintain programs with Mexico and Pakistan, transfer responsibility in Iraq from the Department of Defense to the Department of State, support public diplomacy and exchange programs with countries where large majorities have hostile and distorted opinions of the United States, and continue initiatives that are strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

That is the choice. It is not theoretical; it has very real consequences. It should not be a political or partisan choice.

Senator Gregg and I worked hand in hand to write our portion of the Omnibus within the allocation we were given, an allocation that was $3.2 billion below the President's budget request.

I am not among those who believe the Congress should hand over our responsibility for the budget to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy, but there were no earmarks in our portion of the Omnibus. That has been the practice of our subcommittee for many years.

The minority has elevated hypocrisy to a new level over the issue of earmarks. There are earmarks I have felt were a waste of money. Many of them were Republican earmarks. Other earmarks, by both parties, have been enormously beneficial to the people of our States.

Less than 1 percent of the Omnibus appropriations bill consisted of earmarks--many of them requested by Republicans. Many of them would have improved the lives of their constituents.

But to score cheap political points those same Republicans who took credit for earmarks, now want the American people to believe that eliminating a few billion dollars in earmarks will fix the deficit.

And so they would hand to the administration total discretion to earmark every dollar of the budget. There will come a time, I predict, when they will regret having done so.

I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, for the herculean efforts he made this year--first to get 12 individual appropriations bills reported by the Committee, and then to try to get the Omnibus passed.

He did everything humanly possible, right up to the bitter end. But when those who had pledged their support walked away, there was nothing more he could have done. As he has said, this is no way to run a government.

I also want to thank Senator Gregg, who is retiring this year, for the many

years he has served on the Appropriations Committee, and as ranking member of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

It has been a pleasure working with him. He cares about these programs, he supports the people who serve in our embassies, he understands what is at stake for our country, he asks important questions, and he insists on accountability for the use of funds.

Contrary to what some might think or guess, there were not many times when Senator Gregg, a conservative Republican Senator, and I, a liberal Democratic Senator, disagreed over the need to find the funds to support these programs. We will miss him greatly.

One year ago, 37 Senators--Democrats and Republicans--wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee urging full funding of the President's budget request for the Department of State and Foreign Operations. The funding in the Omnibus was $3.2 billion below that amount.

Rather than voting for a sound bite, Senators should consider the consequences. The consequences are unmistakable.

A continuing resolution says whatever was OK last year is OK this year. I understand that is where we are. Even though a majority of the Senate would support the Omnibus, the minority party has made it impossible to pass anything without 60 votes.

It is no way to govern, and when it involves issues of national security, it is foolhardy.

Mr. President, while partisan rancor seems to have seized the Senate on so many issues this year, on at least one count, I am encouraged and hopeful. There may yet be sufficient bipartisan agreement to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy before this Congress ends. I commend those Senators who have pledged to support the repeal, and I renew my own commitment to this worthy effort. It is well past time to put an end to this discriminatory and harmful policy.

Today, in the U.S. Senate, the stage is being set for one of the major civil rights victories of our lifetimes. Years from now, I hope that historians will have good cause to remember this day as a day when the two parties overcame superficial differences to advance the pursuit of equal rights for all Americans. After much effort, and just as much study and discussion, the Senate finally will proceed to an up-or-down vote on repealing this counterproductive policy.

For those who still harbor concerns that enacting this repeal would somehow harm readiness, one simple fact is the clearest answer: Gay and lesbian Americans already serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces and have always done so. There is no doubt that they have served in the military since the earliest days of the Republic. The only reason they could do so then, and now--even under today's discriminatory policy--is because they display the same conduct and professionalism that we expect from all of our men and women in uniform. They are no different than anyone else, and they should be treated no differently.

Ending this policy will also bring to an end years of forced, discriminatory and corrosive secrecy. Giving these troops the right to serve openly, allowing them to be honest about who they are, will not cause disciplined service members to suddenly become distracted on the battlefield. It is pandering to suggest that they would be.

This is not only my view. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said time and again that this is the right thing to do and that it will not harm our military readiness.

Every member of our armed services should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the mission. Repealing don't ask, don't tell will ensure that we stay true to the principles upon which our great Nation was founded. We ask our troops to protect freedom around the globe. It is time to protect their basic freedoms and equal rights here at home.

Throughout our history, the Senate has shown its ability to reflect and illuminate the Nation's deepest ideals and the Nation's conscience. It is my hope that the Senate will rise to this occasion by breaking through the partisan din to proceed to a debate and vote on repealing this discriminatory and counterproductive policy.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider two judicial nominations that have been stalled for months on the Executive Calendar after being reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.

The first nomination is Albert Diaz of North Carolina, who was nominated in November 2009 to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. His Republican home State senator, Senator Burr, asked nearly a year ago that the Judiciary Committee ``look for an expedited review and referral to the full Senate so that that deficiency on the fourth circuit can be filled.'' We did and the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination after unanimous rollcall vote--19 to 0--on January 28, nearly 11 months ago. There has been no explanation for the lengthy delays preventing final consideration of his nomination.

Judge Albert Diaz is a respected and experienced North Carolina jurist who served in the Armed Forces.

He has the support of both his home State Senators, Senator Hagan and Senator Burr. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him unanimously ``well qualified'', and the North Carolina Bar Association has urged us to confirm him. When he is confirmed today, Judge Diaz will be the first Latino to sit on the Fourth Circuit. I congratulate Judge Diaz and his family on his confirmation.

In addition to Judge Diaz, there are six more superbly qualified consensus circuit court nominees ready for consideration by the Senate, four of them for judicial emergency vacancies. Five of these were reported unanimously, and another was reported with the support of 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. I predict all six would be confirmed with strong bipartisan support, and I hope all six can get up-or-down votes before the Senate adjourns.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we will now finally have a vote on the nomination of Ellen L. Hollander to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Her nomination has been pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar since the Judicial Committee reported it unanimously on June 10, more than 6 months ago. Judge Hollander, a well-respected Maryland State judge for the last 16 years, was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and has the strong support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin.

After the confirmations today, 30 Federal circuit and district court nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee remain ready for final vote. These include 21 nominations reported unanimously and another 3 reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of ``no'' votes. These 24 nominations should have been confirmed within days of being reported.

In addition, 17 nominations ready for action on the Senate calendar are to fill judicial emergency vacancies. With judicial vacancies at historic highs, we should act on these nominations. We should do as we did during President Bush's first 2 years in office, when the Senate with a Democratic majority had up-or-down votes on all 100 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. That included controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lameduck session in 2002. In contrast, during this first Congress of President Obama's administration, the Senate has considered just 49 of the 80 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee.

I congratulate Judge Hollander and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Senator from Wyoming, just for planning purposes? I am going to be recognized next. Approximately how long does the Senator think he will take?

I thank my friend, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know in a couple of hours we will be voting on repeal of don't ask, don't tell, now that we have been able to go past the filibuster of it. I wish to speak about that for a few minutes.

While partisan rancor seems to have seized the Senate on so many occasions this year, on at least this one count I am encouraged and I am hopeful. There is yet sufficient bipartisan agreement to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy before this Congress ends. I commend the Senators who have pledged to support the repeal. Of course I renew my own commitment in support of the effort. It is well past time to put an end to this discriminatory and harmful policy.

Today, in the Senate, the stage is set again for one of the major civil rights victories of our lifetimes. Years from now I hope historians will have good cause to remember that today is the day when the two parties overcame superficial differences to advance the pursuit of equal rights for all Americans. After much effort and just as much study and discussion, the Senate will finally proceed to an up-or-down vote on repealing this counterproductive policy.

For too long we have said let's vote maybe, we are not quite ready for a vote, let's get the filibuster going. I think most Americans expect Senators--after all there are only 100 of us--they expect us to come here and either vote yes or vote no, not vote maybe. A filibuster is voting maybe. To Senators who keep saying I want to think about it more, I want to go longer--we have had years of study. This afternoon it is time for every man and woman in this body to step forward and vote either yes or no. For those who still harbor concerns that enacting this repeal would somehow harm readiness, one simple fact is the clearest answer. Gay and lesbian Americans already serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces and they have always done so. There is no doubt that they have served in the military since the earliest days of the Republic. The only reason they could do so, then and now, even under today's discriminatory policy, is because they display the same conduct and professionalism that we expect from all our men and women in uniform. They are no different from anyone else. They should be treated no differently. As one combat veteran said: I don't care whether the soldier next to me is straight or not; I care whether he can shoot straight or not.

In ending this policy we are bringing to an end years of forced discriminatory and corrosive secrecy. Giving these troops the right to serve openly, allowing them to be honest about who they are, will not cause disciplined servicemembers to suddenly become distracted on the battlefield. It is pandering to suggest that they would be.

But that is not only my view. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said time and time again that this is the right thing to do, that it will not harm our military readiness.

Gay soldiers and straight soldiers have fought and died for our country throughout the history of this country. Gay soldiers and straight soldiers have fought and died for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think of one of the editorial cartoons showing parents at a military graveyard and they are looking at the grave of their son. One says, ``They didn't ask.'' And the other said, ``They didn't tell.''

Look at this--three coffins draped in flags. The caption is, ``Which is the gay one?''

Like so many other Senators, I have walked on a quiet day through the graveyard at Arlington National Cemetery. I have seen dates going back long before I was born. I see people who have died in our world wars, died in Korea, died in Vietnam, who die now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I look at the names--some from my own State--and like everybody else who walks through, I think of the sacrifice of these people and the sacrifice of their families, the life that would not be lived, the children who might not know a parent, the brother who might not know a sister or sister who might not know a brother, parents who are burying their child. Of course in the natural order, children bury their parents. Here, parents have buried their child.

Does anybody look at those graves and say: Move this one because we just found out that soldier who died in battle was gay? If anybody asked to do that there would be an uproar in this country. So I ask why any question about them serving? Every member of our armed services should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the mission. Repealing don't ask, don't tell will ensure that we stay true to the principles on which our great Nation was founded.

We ask our troops to protect freedom around the globe. Isn't it time that we protect their basic freedoms and equal rights here at home? Throughout our history the Senate has shown its ability to reflect and illuminate the Nation's deepest ideals and the Nation's conscience. It is my hope the Senate will rise to this occasion by breaking through the partisan din and proceed to debate, as we have, and now vote on repealing the discriminatory and counterproductive policy.

I see my good friend and neighbor from across the Connecticut river, Senator Shaheen, and I see my friend and colleague--I apologize, I did not see him--the Senator from South Dakota. I know he is waiting. I will yield to him. It is my understanding Senator Shaheen will be recognized after Senator Thune.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have long argued in favor of greater diversity and localism in broadcasting. Today, Congress takes a positive step by making available more radio broadcast outlets for local content.

I am pleased that Congress has finally passed and sent to the President the Local Community Radio Act, which will increase the number of frequencies available for low power FM, LPFM, radio stations. I am a cosponsor of the Senate version of this legislation, and have been an original cosponsor of similar legislation in each of the previous two Congresses. I commend Senator Cantwell for her hard work in reaching an agreement with full power broadcasters that will ensure they are protected.

The rash of nationwide consolidation we have witnessed in the broadcast industry over the last decade has been alarming, if predictable. Low power FM stations offer a valuable counterweight to this trend. By using low power stations, community groups can access underutilized spectrum and provide content tailored to smaller communities. The Local Community Radio Act rolls back unnecessary restrictions that have limited the number of frequencies on which LPFM stations can operate.

This legislation is important because LPFM stations provide opportunities for local organizations to serve local communities. Vermont has 11 LPFM stations serving local communities in Vermont from Hyde Park to Brattleboro to Warren. There is room for more in Vermont and across the country.

Low Power FM provides the opportunity for truly local content to flourish, and today's legislation will make more such stations available.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether we should debate the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. I have been a cosponsor of this important legislation since it was first introduced in the Senate in 2001, and I commend Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar for their hard work in advancing the DREAM Act this year. At the very least, we should have a debate about this important legislation.

Enacting the DREAM Act will serve important priorities for our country and for our military. Under current law, when undocumented students graduate from high school, they typically have no opportunity to gain lawful immigration status, a circumstance that often prevents them from pursuing higher education or making other meaningful contributions to our Nation. The bill recognizes the accomplishments of successful students who want to serve our Nation through military service or by obtaining degrees in higher education.

The DREAM Act offers a path to lawful immigration status to individuals who are currently undocumented, but who were brought to the United States at a young age by their parents. The bill is specifically drafted to assist those students who did not act on their own volition to enter the United States unlawfully. In landmark Supreme Court cases like Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that we should not punish children for the actions of their parents. Yet to deny these students a path to lawful status and eventual citizenship does just that.

In December 2009, the Department of Defense cited passage of the DREAM Act as an important strategic goal for 2010-2012. The Pentagon believes that the DREAM Act has potential to expand our all-volunteer military without decreasing the quality of recruits. It is supported by General Colin Powell and many others.

Despite numerous good faith gestures from Democrats in the Senate to work with Republicans on immigration issues, we have been met with silence at best, and obstructionism at worst. Nonetheless, the version of the DREAM Act that we consider today has been modified to address concerns raised by those who have falsely labeled the DREAM Act as a form of amnesty. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R.6497 will reduce deficits by approximately $2.2 billion over the years from 2011-2020.

While the cost saving in the new version of the DREAM Act is welcome news, I regret that the students and soldiers who benefit from this bill will now have to wait for 10 years to become eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence. They will have to apply for conditional status twice during that 10 year period and pay more than $2,500 in fees. I believe that American values call for more generous treatment of individuals who serve our Nation, especially those who are willing to fight on behalf of our Nation overseas. At various points in the past 10 years, several Republican Senators voted in favor of much more generous versions of this bill. I regret that so few Republicans will support this pared down version of the DREAM Act today.

I wish that we could have achieved bipartisan support in the 111th Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Even without that bipartisan commitment, we should do all we can. The AgJOBS bill, the Uniting American Families Act, the Refugee Protection Act, and the improvement of our immigrant investor program are all reforms that will make our immigration system stronger and more effective. I will continue to work with Senate leadership and Senators from both sides of the aisle to accomplish our shared goals for the broader reform of our Nation's immigration system.

The DREAM Act is a critical step to reforming our immigration system and enables a well-deserving group of young people to better serve our country. I am glad to pledge my full support, and I encourage Senators on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. President, last night, as snow fell in Washington, DC, the Senate freeze on confirming judges began to thaw a bit. I thank the leaders for clearing 4 of the 38 judicial nominations awaiting final action by the Senate. These nominations will fill a few of the historically high number of Federal judicial vacancies around the country, including in the Eastern District of California, one of the districts with the highest workloads in the country. All the nominations confirmed last night were reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection way back in May and early June. I hope this is an indication that the other 34 judicial nominees pending in the Senate will receive consideration and a vote by the Senate before the Senate adjourns.

Senate consideration of the four nominations we confirmed last night was long overdue. In fact, these are the first judicial confirmations the Senate has considered since September 13, more than 3 months ago. For months, these nominations and many others have languished before the Senate, without explanation and for no reason. As a result of these needless delays, of the 80 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, only 45 have been considered by the Senate. Even with yesterday's confirmations, that remains a historically low number and percentage. Meanwhile, 34 judicial nominees with well- established qualifications and the support of their home State Senators from both parties are still waiting for Senate consideration. Some were sent to the Senate for final action as long ago as last January after being reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Last night, we unanimously confirmed Catherine Eagles to the Middle District of North Carolina, Kimberly Mueller to the Eastern District of California, John Gibney to the Eastern District of Virginia, and James Bredar to the District of Maryland. Judge Eagles and Judge Mueller were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on May 6; Mr. Gibney's nomination was reported unanimously on May 27; and Judge Bredar's nomination was reported unanimously on June 10. Judge Mueller's confirmation is particularly welcome news for the Eastern District of California, which maintains the highest weighted caseload among all Federal judicial districts across the country. There is no reason and still no explanation for these delays.

Since last year, I have been urging all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, to join together to take action to end the crisis of skyrocketing judicial vacancies. That has not happened. I have asked that we return to the longstanding practices that the Senate used to follow when considering nominations from Presidents of both parties. This has not happened. As a result, 34 judicial nominations that have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee continue to be stalled on the Senate's Executive Calendar awaiting final consideration and their confirmation.

I hope that our action yesterday in considering a handful of nominations

signals a new effort to address the vacancies that have doubled over the last 2 years. Vacancies are now at the historically high level of 108. Fifty of these vacancies are deemed judicial emergency vacancies by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Senate has received letters from courts around the country calling for help to address their crushing caseloads, including letters from the Chief Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Courts in California, Colorado, Illinois and the District of Columbia. They have pleaded with us to end the blockade and confirm judges to fill vacancies in their courts.

The Senate should vote on all of the judicial nominations awaiting final action by the Senate. We should do as we did during President Bush's first 2 years in office, and consider every judicial nomination favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. During those 2 years, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported 100 judicial nominations and the Senate confirmed every one of them, including controversial circuit court nominations reported during the lame duck session in 2002. In contrast, during this first Congress of President Obama's administration, the Senate has considered just 45 of the 80 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee.

I hope we can build on the belated progress made last night. Agreements to debate and consider nominations have been sought repeatedly. Of the 34 judicial nominations currently stalled on the Executive Calendar, 25 of them were reported unanimously by the 19 Republican and Democratic members of the committee. Another three were reported with strong bipartisan support and only a small number of no votes. Of these 28 bipartisan, consensus nominees, 15 of them were nominated to fill judicial emergency vacancies. They all should have been confirmed within days of being reported. It will be a travesty if they are not all confirmed before the 111th Congress adjourns.

These consensus nominees yet to be considered include six unanimously reported circuit court nominees, and another circuit court nominee supported by 17 of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The nomination of a respected and experienced jurist, Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, for a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fourth Circuit has been stalled for 11 months, since last January, despite the support of both his home state Senators, a Democrat and a Republican. Four of the other consensus circuit court nominations would also fill judicial emergency vacancies, and three of them came through the committee with the strong support of two home State Republican Senators. All seven circuit court nominees are superbly qualified and I predict if considered would be confirmed with strong bipartisan support.

Last night we confirmed four district court nominations, but 26 are still being blocked from consideration. Some were reported as long ago as February. Senate inaction on these nominations is a dramatic departure from the traditional practice of considering them expeditiously and with deference to the home State Senators. These 26 district court nominations include 19 nominations reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Thirteen of these nominations are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. All 26 nominees have well- established qualifications and are at the top of the legal community in their home States. All have put their lives and practices on hold in an attempt to serve their country and their community. There is no cause for continuing to block the Senate from considering their nominations and no precedent for extending these delays further.

For the last 17 years, Catherine Eagles has served North Carolina as a superior court judge. Before that, she spent nearly a decade as an attorney in private practice. Her nomination has had the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Burr, a Republican, and Senator Hagan, a Democrat--as does the nomination of Alberto Diaz to the Fourth Circuit from North Carolina that remains stalled without final action. The American Bar Association, ABA, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Eagles well-qualified-- its highest possible rating--to serve as a District Court Judge. With her confirmation, Judge Eagles will become the first woman to serve on the Middle District of North Carolina, and only the second in the State.

The nomination of Kimberly Jo Mueller to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eastern District of California, one of the busiest courts in the country, was held on the Executive Calendar for more than 7 months. Judge Mueller has served the Eastern District as a Magistrate Judge since 2003. Prior to becoming an attorney, she was a 6-year term as a Sacramento city councilmember before earning her J.D. from Stanford Law School. Her nomination has the strong support of both of her home State Senators and she was unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its highest possible rating. Judge Mueller will be the only female judge in the Eastern District of California.

John A. Gibney, Jr. was nominated more than eight months ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. That Mr. Gibney has the strong support of both Virginia Senators is no surprise since he has a long and distinguished career, practicing law in Richmond, VA, for more than 30 years. Mr. Gibney has represented a wide variety of clients, from business to local governments to private individuals. Currently, he is a partner and a civil litigator in the Richmond, VA, firm ThompsonMcMullan. Mr. Gibney earned his B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, from the College of William & Mary and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. After graduation, he clerked for Justice Harry L. Carrico of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Judge James Bredar has served for 12 years as a Federal Magistrate Judge on the District Court to which he is now nominated. As a lawyer, Judge Bredar saw the justice system from both sides, first as a Federal prosecutor in Colorado and then as a Federal public defender in Maryland. Judge Bredar will be the first Federal defender to serve as a Federal judge in Maryland. His nomination has the support of both of his home State Senators and received the highest possible rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

The 34 judicial nominations remaining on the calendar should be accorded the same up-or-down vote as the four considered last night. They should have the same up-or-down vote given to all 100 of President Bush's judicial nominations reported by the committee in his first 2 years. Even if Republican Senators will not follow our example and treat President Obama's nominees as we treated President Bush's, they should at least listen to their own statements from just a few years ago. They said that every judicial nomination reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee was entitled to an up-or-down vote. They spoke then about the constitutional duty of the Senate to consider every judicial nomination. The Constitution has not changed; it has not been amended. The change from the days in which they made those statements is that the American people elected a new President and he is making the nominations.

The Senate should also debate and a vote on those few nominees that Republican Senators opposed in committee. These nominees include Benita Pearson of Ohio, William Martinez of Colorado, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, John McConnell of Rhode Island, and Goodwin Liu of California. As I have said before, I have reviewed their records and considered their character, background and qualifications. I have heard the criticisms of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee as they have voted against this handful of nominees. I disagree, and believe the Senate would vote on their confirmation. Each of these nominees have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, several of them two or three times, and each deserves an up-or-down vote. That they will not be conservative activist judges should not disqualify them from consideration by the Senate or serving on the bench.

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 made sure that we have not proceeded on any judicial nominees without the support of

both home State Senators. There has been consultation and a thorough and fair process for evaluating nominations. There has been more than enough time for Senators to decide how they want to vote. Now it is time to return to the Senate's longstanding traditions and reject the obstruction that has blocked us month after month from considering judicial nominations. Now is the time to act to address the needs of the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them for justice.

Mr. President, for nearly 2 years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been examining serious issues in forensic science that go to the heart of our criminal justice system. The committee has studied the problem exhaustively, and we reached out to a wide array of experts and stakeholders. While the days of the 111th Congress are drawing to a close, it is my intention to introduce legislation early next year that represents the culmination of this process. That legislation will 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.

In February of 2009, the National Academy of Science, NAS, published a report asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that must be urgently 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 also 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. Indeed, I was disturbed to learn about still more cases in which innocent people may have been convicted, perhaps even executed, in part due to faulty forensic evidence.

Since then, the Judiciary Committee has held a pair of hearing on the issue. Committee members, as well as staff, have spent countless hours talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, judges, forensic practitioners, scientists, academic experts, and many, many others to learn as much as we can about what is happening now and what needs to be done. Through the course of this inquiry, we discussed some of the current problems in forensic science that we need to address. But it also became abundantly clear that the men and women who test and analyze forensic evidence do great work that is vital to our criminal justice system. Accordingly, as a former prosecutor, I am committed to strengthening 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.

While there were varying responses to the findings of the NAS report, one thing was clear: there needed to be a searching review of the state of forensic science work in this country. And it also became clear through this process that there is widespread consensus about the need for change and the kind of change that is needed. Almost everyone I heard from recognized the need for strong and unassailable research to test and establish the validity of the forensic disciplines, as well as the need for consistent and rigorous accreditation and certification standards in the field.

Prosecutors and law enforcement officers want evidence that can be relied upon as definitively as possible to determine guilt and prove it in a court of law. Defense attorneys want strong evidence that can as definitively as possible exclude innocent people. Forensic 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.

Everyone who cares about forensics also recognizes that 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 reduce crime by ensuring that those who commit serious offenses are promptly captured and convicted.

The legislation I intend to introduce next year will address these widely recognized needs. Among other things, it will require that all forensic science laboratories that receive federal funding or federal business be accredited according to rigorous and uniform standards. It will require that all relevant personnel who perform forensic work for any laboratory or agency that gets federal money become certified in their fields, which will mean meeting standards in proficiency, education, and training.

I expect that the proposal will set up a rigorous process to determine the most serious needs for peer-reviewed research in the forensic science disciplines and will set up grant programs to fund that research. The bill will also provide for this research to lead to appropriate standards and best practices in each discipline. It will also fund 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.

The bill that I will introduce will seek to balance carefully a number of competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensic science right. It will capitalize on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. And ultimately, improved forensic science 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 prosecutors or defendants, liberals or conservatives, but justice. I have worked closely with interested Republican Senators on this vital issue. I hope that many Republican Senators will join me in introducing important forensics reform legislation at the beginning of the next Congress, and 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 want to thank the forensic science practitioners, experts, advocates, law enforcement personnel, judges, and so many others whose input forms the basis for the legislation I will propose. Their 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 next year in advancing important legislation to restore confidence to the forensic sciences and the criminal justice system.

Mr. President, on November 19, 2010, the Senate passed the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. This legislation makes many important technical changes to our bankruptcy laws.

Yesterday, on December 16, the House of Representatives passed this legislation again, with an amendment from the Senate. Senator Whitehouse, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, along with Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith of the House Judiciary Committee should be commended for their attention to these issues.

This bipartisan legislation makes numerous technical corrections to the Bankruptcy Code. These revisions are needed as the result in part of the major reforms that took place in 2005. Given the breadth of the 2005 reforms, and the highly technical nature of the code, it was not unexpected that some additional congressional action was needed to make some needed adjustments. Although purely technical, these changes will assist practitioners and judges adjudicate cases under the code more efficiently, and with a savings of judicial resources.

At a time in the United States when Americans are struggling under severe economic conditions and with millions

of Americans having lost their homes or in danger of foreclosure, it is especially important for the Bankruptcy Code to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I thank all Senators for their support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I support the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also called the New START Treaty. New START, if ratified, will have several major and positive impacts on our national security and on global nonproliferation. I must express my deep disappointment that the Senate has not yet ratified this treaty, and I join my friends Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar in appealing to all Senators for their cooperation and support in ratifying this treaty. The New START treaty is the right move for our country and for our world.

New START builds on a long history of strategic nuclear arms treaties between the United States and Russia and Russia's predecessor, the Soviet Union. Beginning with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ratified in 1972, we have entered into three strategic arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and Russia. This number does not include START II, which was ratified by the Senate in 1996 but never entered into force due to subsequent treaty mandates from the Russian Duma. The most recent arms control treaty, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT, was ratified unanimously in March 2003.

Unfortunately, both the SALT and original START treaties have expired, with START concluding last December. The expiration of these treaties means that the United States presently has no fully implemented arms control treaty governing the nuclear weapons stockpiles of the United States and Russia. This circumstance is dangerous to our national security and needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

I am not alone in holding that position. A bevy of experts have strongly urged support for the New START treaty, from all points on the political spectrum. Every senior leader and expert in the current administration supports the quick ratification of New START, from Secretaries Gates and Clinton to a whole range of uniformed leaders such as Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General O'Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency; and General Klotz, the Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command. General Klotz is joined by many of his predecessors who commanded the Strategic Command and Strategic Air Command, including General Welch, General Chain, General Butler, Admiral Ellis, General Davis, and more. Former Secretaries of Defense have come out in support of New START, including James Schlesinger, William Perry, Frank Carlucci, and Harold Brown. Former Secretaries of State of both parties are also advocating Senate ratification: Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger. The list of distinguished, trusted and experienced advocates goes on and on, reading like a ``Who's Who'' of the U.S. diplomatic and military communities.

One of the biggest reasons why so many experts are arguing for ratification of this treaty is because it will do a great deal to control Russian nuclear arms and resume verifiable inspections. New START would reduce Russia's deployment of strategic nuclear warheads by about 25 percent. U.S. inspectors have not held an inspection of Russia's nuclear arsenal for a year; New START would resume inspections. Specifically, U.S. inspectors will have 18 annual inspections of Russian delivery vehicles and warheads. No previous treaty has allowed direct U.S. monitoring of Russian warheads for verification purposes. In fact, the close perspective that U.S. inspections would allow under this treaty will eliminate the need to share information about missile flight testing since that information, also called telemetry, was used to determine the number of warheads that a missile carried. New START will let us determine that by counting the warheads themselves, not by evaluating missile flight data. Secretary Gates has confirmed that New START is sufficiently verifiable that the United States could determine if Russia made any attempts to cheat on our break out of the treaty.

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of New START is its contribution to global nonproliferation, which all of us can agree would be strongly beneficial to our national security interests. The United States will never convince other states to forgo a nuclear program if we do not show our own commitment to ending the nuclear scourge. More importantly, we will not be able to reach agreement with our partners about punitive nonproliferation measures without ratifying New START.

It is difficult to discuss this subject without raising the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Today the international community has put in place deservedly harsh sanctions against Iran's governing regime. These sanctions are so tough that Kenneth Pollack quotes former Iranian President Ayatollah Rafsanjani as calling them ``no joke'' and warning ``that [Iran's] situation is dire.'' These sanctions required patient international cooperation that cannot survive American preventive attacks. And without sanctions we should give up any hope of ending Iran's nuclear program.

Instead, we must continue to isolate Iran by garnering international support for further escalating sanctions. The United States, not Iran, is the indispensable nation, and to gather support for punitive non- proliferation we must lead by example. New START demonstrates our commitment to limiting the threat of nuclear weapons--even those in our own arsenal. And it bolsters our further requests to other countries to squeeze Iran in ways that the ayatollahs cannot tolerate.

Even while New START will renew our leadership in nuclear nonproliferation, the treaty reserves our right to pursue missile defense options and maintain an effective nuclear deterrent. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is extremely unlikely to arrive on the tip of a missile. Even so, the most ardent supporters of spending billions more on strategic missile defense must acknowledge that New START's provisions were so well negotiated as to bar limitations on American defensive technologies. Similarly, the treaty will not prevent us from deterring other nuclear powers. New START allows the United States to maintain a highly credible deterrent.

Expansive and unchecked Russian and American nuclear arsenals are dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary. Eliminating the threat of stolen or illegally purchased nuclear weapons must be among the very gravest threats that the United States faces today. New START will help us diminish and contain that threat. At a time when leaders of both parties are seeking ways to cut the budget deficit, our nuclear program seems like an unnecessary and burdensome vestige of the Cold War. It is difficult if not impossible to credibly argue today that the massive nuclear arsenal we built to deter the Soviet Union serves our needs in today's changed world, where terrorism and the support of terrorism loom so large as threats to our security.

The time has come to do the right thing for the right reasons. Both parties should cooperate, as we have in the past, on issues that will make our country safer. No one should doubt that the New START treaty will do exactly that. Especially on an issue so vitally important to our security, and to the security of our children and grandchildren, the American people want and deserve a fair and straightforward debate. Partisan point-scoring should be checked at the door. Let us vote to ratify New START.