Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the Coburn amendment. The legislative branch has a constitutional duty to make modifications and adjustments to the budget for the Federal Government. As a U.S. Senator and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take very seriously the responsibility of the Senate to help craft the annual Federal budget. Members of Congress have a duty to their constituents to preserve their role in working with the executive branch, whether Democratic or Republican, about how, where, and in what manner Federal dollars are spent.

The U.S. Constitution gives the responsibility of spending and taxation to the Congress, not to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. The notion that individuals who are completely unaccountable to the American people will make spending decisions undermines the most basic principle of democracy. Instead, the Founding Fathers correctly put this burden on the shoulders of individuals who have to answer to voters at the ballot box.

Over the last few months, and particularly in the days since the election, some Members of Congress and Members-elect have been tripping over themselves to take a stronger position in opposition to so-called earmarks. Proponents of this amendment claim that it targets earmarks. I would argue otherwise. This amendment strikes at the heart of the balance that our Founding Fathers established between the executive and legislative branches of our government.

Every single State would be shortchanged by the proposed moratorium on earmarks. The Founders knew better. They knew that a Washington bureaucracy would not always make decisions that were best for country, including people working and living in small towns and big cities across America.

That also includes making better decisions for the men and women who serve in our military. There is no better example than the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have short-changed the Guard equipment budget for decades and have done so even as the Guard has been called to provide as much as half of the troops needed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without the National Guard and Reserve equipment account, our National Guard units would still be going into battle without

equipment like body armor and blast-protected vehicles. Congress insisted on providing funding to our National Guard and that has saved countless lives and enabled them to carry out their missions more effectively.

Adopting this amendment is a vote for less transparency. It is a vote for backroom dealing and less sunlight on how decisions regarding Federal spending are made. One need only look back to when Congress has in the past failed to pass the appropriations bills and the government operated under a continuing resolution for the year. Federal spending did not go down by a single dime. Instead, unelected administration appointees made decisions on which projects they wanted to see funded.

It is my hope that before the next Congress a measure of sanity returns to discussion of the Federal budget. Everyone agrees that we must make serious changes to our Federal balance sheet and bring our fiscal house in order. But it was not earmarks that created our alarming Federal debt. Eliminating earmarks is not going to get our fiscal house in order. Instead it is going to expand the power of the executive branch and its employees. It also rolls back all of the transparency that Congress has embedded into its budget process.

Congress and the administration need to work together to address our Federal deficit. Adopting this amendment banning earmarks is a publicity stunt that has serious ramifications that actually moves our country in the wrong direction toward solving our problems in an open and constructive way.

Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which will take much needed and long overdue steps to protect Americans from unsafe food. I am disappointed that the Senate will not consider, however, an important amendment I proposed that would have held criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. My amendment would have greatly strengthened the ability to deter outrageous conduct that puts Americans at risk. It received unanimous, bipartisan support when it was reported by the Judiciary Committee as the Food Safety Accountability Act. It is unfortunate that, despite this bipartisan support in committee, Republican objections prevented the amendment from being considered by the full Senate.

This legislative proposal would increase the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who knowingly violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. If it were passed, those who knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could receive up to 10 years in jail.

Just this summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is too common and sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct. The company responsible for the eggs at the root of this summer's salmonella crisis had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This amendment would have done that in the most egregious cases.

Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business.

Last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, but Mrs. Meunier's story highlighted improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what she experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe.

After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account last year, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. In that case, the outbreak was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products were linked to the deaths of 9 people and have sickened more than 600 others.

It appears that Mr. Parnell knew that peanut products from his company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the public's safety. Our laws must be strengthened to ensure this does not happen again. My amendment would increase the chances that those who disregard the safety of Americans and commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct.

On behalf of the hundreds of individuals sickened by this summer's and last year's salmonella outbreaks, we must repair our broken food safety system. The House has already passed a provision similar to my amendment. I am sorry that partisan objections from a few Senators prevented the Senate from quickly adopting this important amendment. I will continue to try to pass this commonsense legislation even if it cannot be coupled with the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass it separately.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the November election returns, there was talk on all sides about working together. We can do so right now, without further delay, and in the interests of the American people. As of today there are more than 100 vacancies on the Federal courts around the country, 50 of them for vacancies deemed judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Senate has ready for consideration and confirmation 23 judicial nominees of the President, all of whom have had hearings before the Judiciary Committee and have been reported favorably to the Senate by a majority of that committee. Sixteen of these judicial nominees were reported unanimously. The Senate can confirm those 16 nominees today, and we can then schedule such debate as needed on the remaining seven. Our working together to do so would send the right message to the American people. Let's work together and approve these nominations without additional delay. Let's end the gridlock. Let's move forward.

As the Senate recessed for the elections, we were not allowed to consider and confirm any of the 23 judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar--this despite the judicial vacancies crisis in our Federal courts. As of today there are 108 current judicial vacancies. We already know of 20 future vacancies. In addition, the Senate has not acted on the request by the Judicial Conference of the United States to authorize 56 additional judges, which will allow the Federal judiciary to do its work. Accordingly, the Federal judiciary is currently more than 180 judges short of those needed.

At the end of September, the President of the United States sent a letter to Senate leaders expressing his justifiable concern with the pace of judicial confirmations. The President wrote that the American people and the Federal judiciary suffer from this inaction and that a minority of Senators has, in his words ``systematically and irresponsibly used procedural maneuvers to block or delay confirmation votes on judicial nominees--including nominees that have strong bipartisan support and the most distinguished records.''

All of these nominees have the backing of their home State Senators. Indeed, President Obama has worked hard with home State Senators regardless of party affiliation, and by so doing has done his part to restore comity to the process.

Sixteen judicial nominees have been delayed despite the fact that they were reported without a single vote in opposition from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Regrettably, despite the President's efforts and his selection of outstanding nominees the Senate has not reciprocated by promptly considering his consensus nominees. To the contrary, as the President has pointed out, nominees are being stalled who, if allowed to be considered, would receive unanimous or near unanimous support, be confirmed, and be serving in the administration of justice throughout the country. This is counterproductive.

Like the President, I welcome debate and a vote on those few nominees that some Republican Senators would oppose. Nominees like Benita Pearson of Ohio, William Martinez of Colorado, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Edward Chen of California, John McConnell of Rhode Island, Goodwin Liu of California and Robert Chatigny of Connecticut. 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, as I have, to confirm them. That they will not be conservative activist judges should not disqualify them from serving.

But that is not what is happening. We are not debating the merits of those nominations, as Democratic Senators did when we opposed the most extreme handful of nominees of President Bush. What is happening is that judicial confirmations are being stalled virtually across the board. What is new and particularly damaging is that 16 judicial nominees who were all reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, without Republican opposition, are still being delayed. These nominees include Albert Diaz and Catherine Eagles of North Carolina. They are both supported by Senator Hagan and Senator Burr. Sadly, Senator Burr's support has not freed them from the across the board Republican hold on all judicial nominees. Judge Diaz was reported unanimously in January, almost 11 months ago, and still waits for agreement from the minority in order for the Senate to consider his nomination so that he may be confirmed.

Also being delayed for no good reason from joining the bench of the most overloaded Federal district in the country in the Eastern District of California is Kimberly Mueller, whose nomination was reported last May, more than 6 months ago, without any opposition. Her nomination is one of four circuit and district nominations to positions in the Ninth Circuit currently on the Executive Calendar that Republicans are blocking from Senate consideration. In addition to the Liu and Chen nominations, the nomination of Mary Murguia from Arizona to the Ninth Circuit has been stalled since August despite the strong support of Senator Kyl, the assistant Republican leader.

I want to put into the Record a letter we received this week from Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, a President Reagan appointee, and the other members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit writing ``to emphasize our desperate need for judges'' in the Nation's largest Federal circuit. They write that ``[c]ourts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant'' and urge ``that the Senate act on judicial nominees

without delay.'' This letter echoes the serious warning I have previously spoken about issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Ninth Circuit Conference about skyrocketing judicial vacancies in California and throughout the country. He said: ``It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk.'' He noted that ``if judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled.''

The District of Columbia suffers from four vacancies on its Federal District Court. Two nominees could help that court, but they are now being delayed from final consideration. Beryl Howell was reported by the committee unanimously. She is well known to many of us from her 10 years of service as a counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is a decorated former Federal prosecutor and the child of a military family. Robert Wilkins was also reported without opposition. The distinguished Chief Judge of the District Court, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth sent a recent letter to Senate leaders urging prompt action on these nominations.

John Gibney of Virginia, James Bredar and Ellen Hollander of Maryland, Susan Nelson of Minnesota, Edmond Chang of Illinois, Leslie Kobayashi of Hawaii, and Denise Casper of Massachusetts are the other district court nominees reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee and could have been confirmed as consensus nominees long ago.

Another district court nominee is Carlton Reeves of Mississippi, who is supported by Senator Cochran and is a former president of the Magnolia Bar Association. Only Senator Coburn asked to be recorded as opposing his nomination. I believe Mr. Reeves would receive a strong bipartisan majority vote for confirmation.

Counting Judge Diaz, there are five consensus nominees to the circuit courts who are being stalled. Judge Ray Lohier of New York would fill one of the four current vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He is another former prosecutor with support from both sides of the aisle. His confirmation has been stalled for no good reason for more than 6 months, as well. Scott Matheson is a Utah nominee with the support of Senator Hatch who was reported without opposition. Mary Murgaia is from Arizona and is supported by Senator Kyl and was reported without opposition. Finally, Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio, nominated to the Federal circuit, was reported without opposition.

Many of these nominees could have been considered and confirmed before the August recess. All of them could have been considered and confirmed before the October recess. They were not. They were not because of Republican objections that, I suspect, have nothing to do with the qualifications or quality of these nominees. These are not judicial nominations whose judicial philosophy Republicans question.

The President noted in his September letter to Senate leaders that the ``real harm of this political game-playing falls on the American people, who turn to the courts for justice'' and that the unnecessary delay in considering these noncontroversial nominations ``is undermining the ability of our courts to deliver justice to those in need . . . from working mothers seeking timely compensation for their employment discrimination claims to communities hoping for swift punishment for perpetrators of crimes to small business owners seeking protection from unfair and anticompetitive practices.''

President Obama has reached out to Republican home State Senators regarding his judicial nominations. They should reciprocate. As the President said in his inaugural address calling for a new era of responsibility, he called for ``an end to the petty grievances . . . recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.'' The President recalled the words of Scripture as he urged ``the time has come to set aside childish things.'' Let the Senate end this across the board blockade against confirming noncontroversial judicial nominees. Democrats did not engage in such a practice with President Bush and Republicans should not continue their practice any longer. With more than 100 vacancies plaguing the Federal courts, we do not have the luxury of indulging in such games.

The Senate is well behind the pace set by a Democratic majority in the Senate considering President Bush's nominations during his first 2 years in office. By this date in President Bush's second year in office, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had confirmed 100 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. They were all considered and confirmed during the 17 months I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not a single nominee reported by the Judiciary Committee remained pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar at the end of the Congress.

In sharp contrast, during President Obama's first 2 years in office, the minority has allowed only 41 Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered by the Senate. In 2002, we proceeded in the lame duck session after the election to confirm 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees. This year there are 23 judicial nominations ready for Senate consideration and another 11 noncontroversial nominations on the committee's business agenda that could have been reported out yesterday. Those 11 nominations were needlessly held over another two weeks by Republican Senators but could be reported to the Senate at our next business meeting. That is more than 30 additional confirmations that could be easily achieved with a little cooperation from the minority. That would increase the confirmations from the historically low level of 41, where it currently stands, to between 70 and 75. That would be in the range of judicial confirmations during President George H.W. Bush's first 2 years, 70, while resting far below President Reagan's first 2 years, 87, and pale in comparison to the 100 confirmed in the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration or those confirmed during President Clinton's first 2 years, 127.

I come before the Senate today to make a proposal to end this impasse. This is a proposal the American people will understand and, I believe, support. It, too, has scriptural roots. I ask the Republican leadership to follow the Golden Rule with respect to these judicial nominations. This is not complicated. It is something we teach our children from a young age. It is a basic rule of good behavior. Do unto these nominations as you would have done to the nominations of a Republican President. Following this basic precept would lead to the confirmation without further delay of the nominations reported without opposition. They can be confirmed today. If someone wishes to ask for rollcall votes on these nominations, tell the majority leader so that he can schedule that vote without further delay. End this across the board stall on judicial nominations by allowing the many noncontroversial nominations to proceed without further objection, obstruction or delay.

The new tactic of objecting to consideration of noncontroversial nominations is an escalation of the so-called ``judge wars.'' The attempted justification as some kind of tit-for-tat is wrong. But my proposal does not depend on whether you agree with me or side with partisans from across the aisle. While seeking to justify ``an eye for an eye'' would require a look back and a factual accounting, the Golden Rule is a rule of current and prospective behavior. I hope those on the other side will remember our shared values and adopt the Golden Rule going forward from this day. That would be a step toward returning to our Senate traditions and allow the Senate better to fulfill its responsibilities to the American people and the Federal judiciary.

During these 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years, I scheduled 26 hearings for the judicial nominees of a Republican President and the Judiciary Committee worked diligently to consider them. During the 2 years of the Obama administration, I have tried to maintain that same approach. The committee held its 25th hearing for President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees this week. I have not altered my approach and neither have Senate Democrats.

One thing that has changed is that we now receive the paperwork on the nominations, the nominee's completed questionnaire, the confidential background investigation and the American

Bar Association, ABA, peer review almost immediately after a nomination is made, allowing us to proceed to hearings more quickly. During 2001 and 2002, President Bush abandoned the procedure that President Eisenhower had adopted and that had been used by President George H.W. Bush, President Reagan and all Presidents for more than 50 years. Instead, President George W. Bush delayed the start of the ABA peer review process until after the nomination was sent to the Senate. That added weeks and months to the timeline in which hearings were able to be scheduled on nominations.

When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee midway through President Bush's first tumultuous year in office, I worked very hard to make sure Senate Democrats did not perpetuate the ``judge wars'' as tit-for-tat. Despite the fact that Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the Clinton administration, in 2001 and 2002, during the 17 months I chaired the committee during President Bush's first two years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees.

By refusing to proceed on President Clinton's nominations while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the 6 years they controlled the pace of nominations, Senate Republicans allowed vacancies to rise to more than 110 by the end of the Clinton administration. As a result of their strategy, Federal circuit court vacancies doubled. When Democrats regained the Senate majority halfway into President Bush's first year in office, we turned away from these bad practices. 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 with a Democratic President back in office. Instead, Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy they used during the Clinton administration of blocking the nominations of a Democratic President, 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 have yet to confirm 30 Federal circuit and district judges. We are not even keeping up with retirements and attrition. As a result, judicial vacancies are, again, over 100 and, again, more than 10 percent.

Regrettably, the Senate is not being allowed to consider the consensus, mainstream judicial nominees favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee. It has taken nearly five times as long to consider President Obama's judicial nominations as it did to consider President Bush's during his first 2 years in office. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the 100 judges confirmed were considered by the Senate an average of 25 days from being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The average time for confirmed circuit court nominees was 26 days. By contrast, the average time for the 41 Federal circuit and district and circuit court judges confirmed since President Obama took office is 90 days and the average time for circuit nominees is 148 days--and that disparity is increasing.

This vacancies crisis alarms the President of the United States. It alarms Supreme Court Justices. It alarms the Federal Bar Association. It alarms the American Bar Association. I ask unanimous consent that the President's September 30 letter, Chief Judge Lamberth's November 4 letter, and statements by the Federal Bar Association and American Bar Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

There is no good reason to hold up consideration for weeks and months of nominees reported without opposition from the Judiciary Committee. I have been urging since last year that these consensus nominees be considered promptly and confirmed. If Senators would follow the Golden Rule, that would happen without further delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Council letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the material was orderd to be printed in the Record, as follows:

November 15, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Sessions,

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: We write on behalf of the courts of the Ninth

Circuit. As you know, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest

federal circuit in the country, encompassing the 9 western

states, plus the territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately one fifth of the

population of the United States lives within the borders of

the Ninth Circuit. Our case-load reflects the diversity of

our territory and the people that inhabit it and is heavily

impacted by increased immigration enforcement, drug

interdiction activities, prison litigation, bankruptcy and

environmental cases--to name just a few of the most active

areas.

In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress

expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out

our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we

write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Our

need in that regard has been amply documented (See attached

March 2009 Judicial Conference Recommendations for Additional

Judgeships). Courts cannot do their work if authorized

judicial positions remain vacant.

While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that

Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships

requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly

assisted if our judicial vacancies--some of which have been

open for several years and declared ``judicial

emergencies''--were to be filled promptly. We respectfully

request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without

delay.

Sincerely,

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Central District of

California;

Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, Northern District of

California;

Procter Hug, Jr., Senior Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit;

Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, District of Nevada;

Robert H. Whaley, Senior Judge, Eastern District of

Washington.

chief judges, u.s. district courts of the ninth circuit

Ralph R. Beistline, Chief Judge, District of Alaska;

Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Southern District of

California;

Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, District of Hawaii;

Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, District of Montana;

Lonny R. Suko, Chief Judge, Eastern District of

Washington;

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Eastern District of

California;

Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, District of

Guam;

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, District of Idaho;

Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, District of Oregon;

Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Western District of

Washington.

Mr President, I rise today to express my support for passage of the Pigford and Cobell Settlements. But before I address the need to pass this legislation, I would like to take a few minutes to congratulate the other side of the aisle for keeping their self imposed earmark ban for all of four days.

Much like Captain Renault in Casablanca I am sure that my colleagues will be shocked, just shocked to know that there are earmarks embedded in the extraneous provisions that have been added to this bill. When I first heard that these water rights bills were being added to Pigford I assumed they simply contained agreements to settle long delayed disputes over water claims with American Indian tribes. And if that were indeed the case, I would offer no objection and encourage the speedy adoption of this package.

But unfortunately that is only half the story. The reality is that these bills are laden down with pork, to use a phrase I know is a favorite of a few my colleagues. In fact, to single out one project in particular, this package of bills will send hundreds of millions

of dollars to one tribe in Arizona to help them make snow at their ski resort, improve water flow to their casino and build fish hatcheries to improve local fish production.

Now I am not an expert on the specifics of water rights claims in the West or what it costs to build a drinking water system in east central Arizona. To my knowledge I have never met any of the 15,000 members of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, which would benefit from this funding, and I hold nothing against them. Perhaps these projects are all crucial to helping provide economic opportunities for the tribe.

But as a long time member of the Appropriations Committee, I do know an earmark when I see it. And this, my friends, is an earmark. What I find particularly fascinating about this earmark is that it goes to the very state whose Members of the House and Senate have been the loudest voices in opposing this type of spending. Over the last few months, and particularly in the days since the election, Members of the other side of the aisle have been tripping over themselves to take a stronger position in opposition of earmarks. As I noted previously, just this week the Senate Republican caucus took a position to support a complete ban on pursuing earmarks.

Now that the Senate is considering directing millions of dollars to the needs of their constituents, they are nowhere to be found. And I am just having the hardest time understanding why. Because I also recall a report that two of our colleagues put together this past August on what they believed to be wasteful spending from the Recovery Act.

In fact I have a vivid memory of how this report criticized an economic development project in Vermont that gave a loan for improvements at a ski area that needed to make upgrades to attract new business. I believe this report also took to task projects that supported economic activities related to casinos in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.

I bring this up not to rehash whether these projects are a good use of Federal funds, though I strongly support the Vermont project. I do so to recall the outrage of my colleagues over this spending on ski resorts and casinos and ask, where are they now?

Where are the so called budget hawks who rail against what they see as wasteful spending now that their colleagues are pushing for an earmark for this same purpose?

Where are the voices of those who have spoken so strongly against targeted spending in other States, but clearly have no problem with this spending now that it benefits their own constituents?

The hypocrisy of the situation before us would be unbelievable if was not so predictable. I often advocate for projects that benefit Vermont within the budget framework that the Appropriations Committee has to work with each year. I am confident that the Vermont projects I have helped secure have improved our State's infrastructure, economy and quality of life.

I am proud of that work and stand by each and every project I have brought back to Vermont. But I cannot remain quiet as the other side of the aisle demagogues this work when it helps one area of the country and then works behind the scenes to slip an earmark of their own through the Senate.

It is my hope that before the next Congress a measure of sanity returns to discussion of the Federal budget. No one is claiming that changes to the budget should not be made. But the empty rhetoric blaming earmarks as the cause of the current budget deficits obscures the real issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. President, today, the Senate passed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. I thank Senators Kyl, Merkley and Burr for their leadership on this important legislation, which bans the creation, sale and distribution of obscene animal crush videos. We worked together on a bipartisan basis to ensure that the bill respects the first amendment and the role of our court system, while at the same time giving law enforcement a valuable and necessary tool to stop obscene animal cruelty.

Earlier this year, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning depictions of animal cruelty because it held the statute to be overbroad and in violation of the first amendment. Animal crush videos, which can depict obscene, extreme acts of animal cruelty, were a primary target of that legislation.

Several months ago, in response to the Stevens decision, the House overwhelmingly passed a narrower bill banning animal crush videos on obscenity grounds. The Senate Judiciary Committee regularly looks at questions raised by Supreme Court decisions and the first amendment, and the House bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. The version of the bill passed today reflects a carefully crafted compromise between the House and Senate that strikes the right balance between the first amendment and the needs of law enforcement, while adhering to the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

There are a few well-established exceptions to the first amendment. The United States has long prohibited the interstate sale of obscene materials, and the Supreme Court recognized this exception to the first amendment in 1957. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing focused on the obscene nature of many animal crush videos. We heard testimony from experts who confirmed that many animal crush videos depict extreme acts of animal cruelty which are designed to appeal to a specific, prurient, sexual fetish. Indeed, these animal crush videos are patently offensive, lack any redeeming social value, and can be banned consistent with the Supreme Court's obscenity jurisprudence. Courts and juries play an important role in determining what is obscene, and I worked hard with Senator Sessions, and the bill sponsors, to make sure that the law passed today respects the role of both.

The United States also has a history of prohibiting speech that is integral to criminal conduct. The acts of animal cruelty depicted in many animal crush videos violate State laws, but these laws are hard to enforce. The animal cruelty is often committed in a clandestine manner that allows the perpetrators to remain anonymous. The nature of the videos makes it extraordinarily difficult to establish the jurisdiction necessary to prosecute the crimes. Given the severe difficulties that State law enforcement agencies have encountered in investigating the underlying conduct, today Congress has taken an important step towards combating the crimes of extreme animal cruelty that obscene animal crush videos depict.

I have long been a champion of first amendment rights. As the son of Vermont printers, I know firsthand that the freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. This is why I have worked hard to pass legislation like the SPEECH Act, which protects American authors, journalists and publishers from foreign libel lawsuits that undermine the first amendment.

Today's success demonstrates that Congress can work on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation that is the focus of many competing interests. I commend the coalition that worked hard, alongside the Humane Society and first amendment experts, to strike the proper balance between the needs of law enforcement and the first

amendment, and I am pleased that, once the President signs this bill into law, obscene animal crush videos will no longer threaten animal welfare.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today has taken up and passed bipartisan legislation to make a number of improvements to the way in which the Copyright Office functions, to clarify areas in copyright law that have become unclear, and make technical changes to current law. The Copyright Office provided important recommendations that are included in this legislation, and I thank them for their input and guidance on these issues.

The changes made by this legislation are commonsense improvements that will make the copyright system more efficient. Bills such as this underscore the point that when Congress works together in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion, we can pass good pieces of legislation. I appreciate the Senate acting quickly to pass this bill, and I look forward to the President signing it into law.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, recently I spoke to the Senate on the occasion of the consideration of the nomination of Jane Branstetter Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit. It was nearly 10 months after her nomination was favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Republicans finally consented to a time agreement and vote, despite the support of the senior Senator from Tennessee, a member of the Republican leadership. Nevertheless, I said then that if consideration of the Stranch nomination, after months of needless delay, represented a bipartisan willingness to return to the Senate's tradition of offering advice and consent without extensive delays, I welcomed it. I urged the Senate to consider the other 16 judicial nominations then on the Senate Executive Calendar favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee without further delay.

Regrettably, since Judge Stranch was approved by a bipartisan majority on September 13, the Senate has not considered a single additional judicial nomination, although some were reported as long ago as January. Indeed,

during the rest of this work period the list of judicial nominations stalled on the calendar has grown to 23, including 16 that were reported by the committee unanimously. Meanwhile judicial vacancies around the country continue to rise and now number 104. These include 48 vacancies that the Judicial Conference has designated as judicial emergencies.

The Senate is well behind the pace set by a Democratic majority in the Senate considering President Bush's nominations during his first 2 years in office. Republicans have allowed the Senate to consider and confirm only 41 of President Obama's circuit and district court nominations over the last 2 years. In stark contrast, by this date in President Bush's second year in office, the Senate with a Democratic majority had confirmed 78 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. That number reached 100 by the end of 2002, all considered and confirmed during the 17 months I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During those 17 months, I scheduled 26 hearings for the judicial nominees of a Republican President and the Judiciary Committee worked diligently to consider them. During the 2 years of the Obama administration, I have tried to maintain that same approach, and the committee has held 25 hearings for President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. I have not altered my approach and neither have the Senate Democrats.

One thing that has changed is that we have been able to hold hearings for nominees more regularly because we now receive the paperwork on the nominations, the nominee's completed questionnaire, the confidential background investigation and the America Bar Association, ABA, peer review almost immediately after a nomination is made, allowing us to proceed. During 2001 and 2002, President Bush abandoned the procedure that President Eisenhower had adopted and that had been used by President George H.W. Bush, President Reagan and all Presidents for more than 50 years. Instead, President George W. Bush delayed the start of the ABA peer review process until after the nomination was sent to the Senate. That added weeks and months to the timeline in which hearings were able to be scheduled on nominations.

When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee midway through President Bush's first tumultuous year in office, I worked very hard to make sure Senate Democrats did not perpetuate the ``judge wars'' as tit-for-tat. Despite that fact that Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the Clinton administration to more than 110, in 2001 and 2002, during the 17 months I chaired the committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees.

By refusing to proceed on President Clinton's nominations while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the 6 years they controlled the pace of nominations, Senate Republicans allowed vacancies to rise to more than 110 by the end of the Clinton administration. As a result of their strategy, Federal circuit court vacancies doubled. When Democrats regained the Senate majority halfway into President Bush's first year in office, we turned away from these bad practices. 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 with a Democratic President back in office. Instead, Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy they used during the Clinton administration of blocking the nominations of a Democratic President, 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 have yet to confirm 30 Federal circuit and district judges. We are not even keeping up with retirements and attrition. As a result, judicial vacancies are, again, over 100 and, again, more than 10 percent.

This trend should alarm the American people who expect justice from the Federal courts. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a recent column by Attorney General Eric Holder about the cost to the American system of justice. He writes:

The federal judicial system that has been a rightful source

of pride for the United States--the system on which we all

depend for a prompt and fair hearing of our cases when we

need to call on the law--is stressed to the breaking point.

Last year, 259,000 civil cases and 75,000 criminal cases

were filed in the federal courts, enough to tax the abilities

of the judiciary even when it is fully staffed. But today

there are 103 judicial vacancies--nearly one in eight seats

on the bench. Men and women who need their day in court must

stand in longer and longer lines.

I will also ask consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a recent article that appeared on Slate by Dahlia Lithwick and Professor Carl Tobias, pointing out that thousands of hard-working Americans seeking justice in our courts bear the cost of justice delayed and denied as a result of vacant courtrooms and overburdened judges. Many senior and retired judges continue to try to carry the workload, but we fall farther behind. They write:

It stands to reason that if you can't get into a courtroom,

if the docket is too packed for your case to be heard

promptly, or if the judge lacks sufficient time to address

the issues raised, justice suffers. This will directly affect

thousands of ordinary Americans plaintiffs and defendants

whose liberty, safety, or job may be at stake and for whom

justice may arrive too late, if at all. In some

jurisdictions, civil litigants may well wait two to three

years before going to trial. In jurisdictions with the most

vacancies, it will often take far longer for published

opinions to be issued, or courts will come to rely on more

unpublished opinions. More worrisome still, because the

Speedy Trial Act requires that courts give precedence to

criminal cases, some backlogged courts have had to stop

hearing civil cases altogether.

Earlier this month, I spoke to the Senate about the serious warning issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Ninth Circuit Conference about skyrocketing judicial vacancies in California and throughout the country. He said, ``It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk.'' He noted that ``if judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled.'' A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times focuses on the acute problems in the Ninth Circuit and urges the Senate to act on three nominations to fill vacancies in Federal courts in California.

President Obama has not made nominations opposed by home State Senators but has, instead, reached out and worked with home State Senators from both parties. Likewise, I have respected the minority. We have tried to develop and improve the cooperation between parties and branches. It is disappointing to see others take the opposite approach. We could help to address this vacancies crisis just by acting on the judicial nominations ready for action but which remain stalled on the Executive Calendar.

I have worked closely with the ranking Republicans on the Judiciary Committee while serving as its chairman. I have enjoyed my relationship with the current Ranking Republican, and I have often thanked Senator Sessions for his cooperation in working with me to hold hearings and consider nominations in committee. I was disappointed by his statement to the Senate last week, however. He is entitled to his own perspective on these matters, of course. I feel very strongly that Democrats in the Senate treated President Bush's judicial nominations better and more fairly than Republicans had those of President Clinton, and certainly better than President Obama's nominees are currently being treated. The comparison of vacancy rates and the number of judges confirmed in President Bush's first 2 years with a Democratic majority--100, including 17 circuit court nominations--bear that out. I also believe that there was a clear difference in the smaller number of judicial nominees opposed by Democratic Senators and the open manner in which Democrats made clear the basis of their opposition in contrast to the secret holds and across the board nature of the Republican opposition. Another indisputable fact is the judicial vacancy crisis during the Clinton administration that has been recreated since President Obama was elected. By contrast, during the Bush administration

Senate Democrats worked to reduce vacancies and the result was that we did so dramatically.

Indeed, much of Senator Sessions' statement last Wednesday reads like an attempted justification for some sort of payback. He does concede that we proceeded promptly to confirm President Bush's district court nominations, but unfortunately attributes a sinister cast even to those actions. Sometimes the statement does not merely attribute the wrong motive or mischaracterize what happened, but is a misstatement of the facts. For example, the Senator suggested that the Senate confirmed only 6 of President Bush's 25 circuit court nominees. In fact, we worked hard to confirm 17 circuit court nominees in the 17 months that I chaired the committee during 2001 and 2002.

By contrast, only 11 of President Obama's circuit court nominees have been confirmed these 2 years--this, despite the fact that 17 have, so far, been reported by the Judiciary Committee. Five of the six circuit court nominations stalled and still being prevented from being considered were reported unanimously, one as long ago as January. This is another good illustration of the difference in how Republican and Democratic Senators have treated judicial nominations by the President of the other party.

Democratic Senators did not stall such consensus nominations for spite or payback. And when we opposed nominations we said why. Unlike President Bush, President Obama has not made a series of judicial nominees designed to pack the courts with ideologues. Instead, he has worked with home State Senators and selected highly qualified, predominately moderate nominees.

Nor have we sought to force through nominations by ignoring the rules and traditions of the Senate or the committee, as Republicans did. Those practices are detailed in my contemporaneous statements at the time but ignored in the statement made last Wednesday. For example, when I became chairman in 2001, I made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' public for the first time, preventing Senators from anonymously blocking committee action on judicial nominees. That was a bad practice that led to the pocket filibusters of more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Also ignored in last Wednesday's statement was the history of earlier filibusters, such as that of the Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas to be the Chief Justice and of President Clinton's nominations to the Ninth Circuit.

The statement was in many regards ahistorical or anti-historical. In complaining about a handful of Fourth Circuit nominees in the last 2 years of President Bush's administration, the statement ignored the fact that we had broken the logjam caused by 8 years of Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominations to that circuit and that the examples cited were after vacancies had been reduced and in light of opposition from home State Senators to some of the nominees. Indeed, we might have made even more progress had President Bush not proceeded for years to make several extreme nominations. The statement also seems unaware of the work we did to resolve the impasse in the Sixth Circuit, resulting in every single vacancy in the circuit being filled by President Bush.

Regrettably, the Senate this year is not being allowed to consider the consensus, mainstream judicial nominees favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee. It has taken nearly five times as long to consider President Obama's judicial nominations as it did to consider President Bush's during his first 2 years in office. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the 100 judges confirmed were considered by the Senate an average of 25 days from being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The average time for confirmed circuit court nominees was 26 days. By contrast, the average time for the 41 Federal circuit and district and circuit court judges confirmed since President Obama took office is 90 days and the average time for circuit nominees is 148 days--and that disparity is increasing.

Senate Republicans have refused to allow prompt consideration even to those consensus nominations that are reported unanimously and without opposition by the Judiciary Committee. There is no good reason to hold up consideration for weeks and months of nominees reported without opposition from the Judiciary Committee. I have been urging since last year that these consensus nominees be considered promptly and confirmed.

In 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the Senate with a Democratic majority confirmed 100 judicial nominees. We obviously will not reach that level or reduce judicial vacancies as effectively as we did in those 2 years. What we can do is consider the 23 judicial nominations already on the calendar. That could bring us to 64 Federal circuit and district court confirmations. If we also completed action on the 11 additional judicial nominees who participated in September hearings, that could bring us to a respectable total of 75 circuit and district court confirmations. That would be in the range of judicial confirmations during President Reagan's first 2 years (88) and President George H.W. Bush's, 72, but pale in comparison to the 100 confirmed in the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration or those confirmed during President Clinton's first 2 years, 126.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 4 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Medicare and Medicaid: Taking Steps to Modernize America's Health Care System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Stuxnet.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial and Executive Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, in the coming months, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T--a monumental Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, case that could vastly expand the rights of corporations to shield their activities from public view. Like many Americans who deeply value openness, transparency and accountability in our government, I urge the Court to reject efforts to broaden the personal privacy exemption to FOIA to include corporate information.

A decade after Congress first enacted the Freedom of Information Act, Congress created an exemption to this law for law enforcement records that contain sensitive personal information. The so-called ``personal privacy exemption'' for law enforcement records--FOIA exemption 7(C)-- allows the government to withhold information contained in its investigatory files that ``could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.''

By creating this exemption, Congress intended to shield from public disclosure sensitive personal information about individuals who may be mentioned in government files. However, Congress never intended for this exemption to apply to corporations.

The legislative history for the personal privacy exemption makes clear that Congress intended for this exemption to protect an individual's right to privacy. Indeed, when the Senate debated this exemption in May of 1974, Senator Philip Hart, who drafted the personal privacy exemption, remarked that ``the protection for personal privacy included in [the exemption] . . . is part of the sixth exemption [to FOIA] in the present law. By adding the protective language here, we simply make clear that the protections in the sixth exemption for personal privacy also apply to disclosure under the seventh exemption. I wish to also make it clear, in case there is any doubt, that this clause is intended to protect the privacy of any person mentioned in the requested files, and not only the person who is the object of the investigation.''

Former Senator Roman Hruska also confirmed that Congress intended for the exemption to address individual privacy rights. Regarding the personal privacy exemption, he said ``we are dealing in this matter with what I believe to be the most important rights, and in some respect the most important rights, an individual may possess, his right to privacy, and his right to personal safety.'' The universal understanding that the personal privacy exemption pertains only to the privacy rights of individuals is further confirmed by the remarks of former Senator Strom Thurmond, who noted during the Senate debate that ``[a]ll of us are aware of the general feeling permeating the country, that our citizens want to know what their Government is doing . . . However, by the same token, we are also concerned about a mutual problem of invasion of an individual's privacy.''

During the more than four decades since the Congress enacted the personal privacy exemption to FOIA, our Federal courts and Federal agencies have consistently interpreted this exemption to apply only to individuals.

Over the years, the Congress--with the full knowledge of how the courts have interpreted this exemption--has never amended this exemption, nor called into question the universally held view that the exemption protects the personal privacy rights of individuals.

Given the clear legislative history and the longstanding case precedent in this area, I am deeply troubled by recent efforts to vastly--and I believe improperly--expand the scope of this exemption to reach corporations. While I do not quibble with the notion that certain corporate information should be exempt from public disclosure, I firmly believe that Congress has provided meaningful and adequate protections for sensitive corporate information in other parts of FOIA. Indeed, Congress specifically enacted FOIA exemption 4 to protect trade secrets and other sensitive corporate information from public disclosure. Tellingly, American corporations have successfully relied upon exemption 4 for decades, to safeguard their sensitive business information when it is shared with the government.

I fear that vastly expanding the personal privacy exemption for law enforcement records would close a vital window into how our government works. I also fear that extending this exemption to corporations would permit corporations to shield from public view critical information about public health and safety, environmental dangers, and financial misconduct, among other things--to the great detriment of the people's right to know and to our democracy.

As Senator Hart wisely noted during the debate of the 1974 FOIA amendments, ``survival for a society such as ours hinges very importantly on the access that a citizen can have to the performance of those he has hired.'' I sincerely hope that our Nation's highest Court will carefully consider these words and that the Court will narrowly construe the personal privacy exemption, consistent with congressional intent. Should the Court decide to do otherwise, I will work with others in the Congress to ensure that FOIA, and specifically the personal privacy exemption for law enforcement records, remains a meaningful safeguard for the American people's right to know.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has described in detail the severe consequences for domestic programs and personnel of the amendment offered by Senator Thune. I want to mention three examples of what the Thune amendment would do to critical international programs that mean the difference between life and death for the world's poorest people.

It would cut $388 million for global health programs to combat HIV/ AIDS, malaria, Swine Flu, and many other deadly diseases that claim millions of lives annually.

It would cut $87 million for aid for refugees, the world's most vulnerable people.

Funding for refugees will already be well below the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 because an additional $165 million was included in the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental that is not counted in the CR, so the actual cut for refugee aid including this amendment would be $252 million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This translates into millions of lives lost.

It would cut $42 million for international disaster relief. Funding for this account will already be reduced by $460 million that was included in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental that is not counted in the CR.

The total amount under this amendment for disaster relief would therefore be $502 million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This would severely limit our ability to aid victims of earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.

These are not theoretical examples. They are real. This amendment is not just about dollars and cents. It is about human lives. It is a moral issue. A 5-percent cut may not sound like a lot. The sponsor of the amendment says it is only 5 percent. What he does not say is that the consequences of this amendment would be devastating for millions of people around the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010, which passed the Senate unanimously in May. I applaud the leadership of the House for taking up this legislation, which is of great importance to the law enforcement community. Today's action brings to a successful conclusion the good work of Senators and Representatives who have helped move this legislation through both Chambers and builds upon the bipartisan Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that was enacted in 2004.

I want to recognize the longstanding efforts and strong support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations, along with many others in the broader law enforcement community. Their support and assistance contributed greatly to today's success. I also thank the Judiciary Committee's ranking member Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and Senator Conrad for their cosponsorship.

This legislation will assist qualified Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers in exercising their privileges related to the interstate concealed carry of firearms under existing law more easily and efficiently. The legislation will give active-duty officers and qualified retired officers more flexibility in obtaining the necessary credentials in several important ways and will overcome some of the challenges that retired officers have faced in the past in obtaining certification. The legislation will also remove some of the administrative pressure on law enforcement agencies by allowing the required firearms qualification testing of retired officers to be done by a private firearms instructor who is certified to test active-duty officers in his or her jurisdiction and at the officer's own expense. And it will give law enforcement agencies more certainty and authority when determining whether a retired officer suffers from mental health issues sufficient to disqualify that officer from certification under the law.

I have great confidence in the men and women in law enforcement who put their own lives on the line to serve their fellow citizens every day. This confidence extends to these men and women whether they are on the job or off duty. I trust in them and their proven ability to exercise the firearm privileges provided under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act responsibly and with the same solemnity with which they approach their official duties.

I have said many times that Congress's efforts to assist State and local law enforcement are a crucial part of our Federal policy and a policy that pays dividends in our overall capability to protect the citizens of the United States. State and local law enforcement officers are the first line of defense and support in America's communities, and for that they deserve the recognition and continued support of Congress. We must also recognize the men and women who serve as law enforcement officers throughout the Federal Government, for whom this legislation will also provide benefits. Federal officers play an indispensible role in the Federal system and in important partnerships with State and local officials around the country. I am glad that the improvements we have worked for over the last several years will finally be enacted, and I look forward to hearing about the positive changes that will come.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to call the Senate's attention to members of the Baha'i faith who have and continue to suffer severe persecution by the Iranian Government.

Senators should be aware that seven prominent Iranian Baha'i leaders are currently in prison, facing sentences of up to 10 years, charged with espionage, establishing an illegal administration, and promoting propaganda against the Islamic order. These spurious charges are only the latest example of the mistreatment of the largest religious minority in Iran.

Ironically, the Baha'i faith originated in Iran during the 19th century, separating the Baha'is from their previous affiliation with Islam. The founder of the faith, known as The Bb, was then arrested, locked in a dungeon, and executed, as were some 20,000 of his followers. These atrocities devastated a religion whose tenets include global unity, peace and diversity.

Persecution of the Baha'is in Iran continued into the next century, with the Iranian Government's destruction of Baha'i literature in 1933, and in 1955 the demolition of the Baha'i national headquarters. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government has stepped up its active discrimination against the Baha'is. Children are prohibited or discouraged from receiving higher education, Baha'is are unable to practice their faith in public, they are prevented from opening businesses or advancing their careers, and Baha'i cemeteries are destroyed. Baha'is are slandered by the Iranian media, often called worshippers of Satan.

The arrests of the seven Baha'I leaders are the latest official Iranian abuse against members of this religious faith. These men and women led the ``Friends in Iran,'' a Baha'i group working to meet the needs of the Baha'is in Iran. After their arrest, the group disbanded, reducing the much needed support to the Baha'is. The leaders were incarcerated in 2008, and were not brought before a judge for over 20 months.

The systematic abuses of the Baha'i by the Iranian Government are clear violations of provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a signatory, on economic and educational opportunities, religious freedom, and due process. They are also violations of Iran's own laws.

Prominent global leaders are speaking out in support of the Baha'is in Iran, including Secretary of State Clinton, her British counterpart William Hague, and the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. They

have each expressed concern and disapproval with Iran's mistreatment of Baha'is. They are joined by a long list of human rights groups, such as the International Federation for Human rights, Human Rights Watch and the Iranian League for the Defense of Human Rights. I want to add my voice in condemning Iran's persecution of its Baha'i religious minority.

Our Nation stands for fundamental rights and freedoms. We are not perfect, and I have not hesitated to speak out when I felt we fell short of our own values and principles. But I also believe we have an obligation to speak out when the fundamental rights of citizens of other nations are being denied. The Baha'is of Iran deserve our admiration and support.

Mr. President, at a time when many Americans are increasingly concerned with the situation in Afghanistan, I was interested in an investigative report on U.S. aid for Afghanistan in the August 2, 2010, issue of the Christian Science Monitor weekly magazine. The report describes several aspects of the U.S. Agency for International Development's approach to development in that country, and I want to take a minute to clarify what may be a misconception about the Congress's expectations.

The article describes USAID's focus on the ``burn rate''--that is, how quickly aid funds are spent. With this as USAID's focus, the more money the President asks for, the more money Congress appropriates, the more money USAID has available to spend, and the faster USAID says it needs to spend it in order to satisfy Congress.

The article gives examples of the mistakes and problems that have resulted from trying to spend too much, too fast, in an environment where security threats severely limit the ability of USAID to monitor the funds, where a large percentage of the population lives as though it were the 12th century, where corruption is pervasive, and where the Karzai Government is widely perceived as ineffective or worse. The article describes big-dollar contracts with foreign companies that are not familiar with Afghanistan, for projects that are hastily designed from the top down, are overly ambitious, and too often do not produce good results.

This is one Senator who is not impressed by burn rates. I don't think they are a good measure of anything, except possibly waste. When I hear that the administration expects to increase the burn rate for USAID programs and activities in Afghanistan from $250 million per month to $300 million per month, it rings alarm bells. I am interested in projects that are worth the investment and that provide lasting improvements in the lives of the Afghan people. More often, that means spending less, and spending it more slowly and more carefully.

What we are seeing in Afghanistan is reminiscent of Iraq, although in Iraq the waste and shoddy results were on a far larger scale. The Pentagon was asked to be a relief and reconstruction agency that it was never meant to be. The empty buildings, electricity blackouts and unfinished projects are part of the costly legacy of that debacle.

But the increasing tendency in Afghanistan to measure progress by the rate at which money is spent is unwise. We have urged USAID to go slower, to focus on smaller, manageable, sustainable projects that are chosen with input from local communities. Local people, and local governments or national government ministries with a record of transparency, accountability and good performance, should be involved at all stages, from design to implementation to oversight. It may take longer, the projects may not be as grandiose, but the long term results are likely to be better.

In response, we are told USAID needs more money to support the civilian surge and implement bigger projects quickly as part of the ``clear, hold, build'' strategy. I understand the pressure USAID is under, from the Pentagon, the White House, and the State Department, to spend more money faster. I suspect if it were up to USAID alone it would spend less and get better results. And I am concerned that at the same time USAID is being told to spend more, it is treated as a second- class agency that sometimes has to fight just to be included in the discussions about the very strategy it is told to implement.

But I have seen, as the Christian Science Monitor describes, the disappointing results of the big-spending, rushed approach. Costly new roads that are already deteriorating, poorly built irrigation canals that have collapsed from landslides, hydro-electric projects that don't produce electricity. United States officials in Kabul who have been in the country only a few months and will be gone after a year, trying to direct what happens on the ground hundreds of miles away. Perhaps the worst of it is that many Afghans have become angry and distrustful of the United States because they know these projects were expensive and mismanaged, and promises were not kept. Just as bad is when USAID contractors issue self-serving reports--describing projects which cost too much and produced too little--as success stories.

Of course, spending billions of dollars does produce successes. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan girls are in school thanks to the United States. That alone is a major achievement. Agricultural productivity is increasing, thanks to USAID programs, although opium poppy cultivation is also flourishing. Another success is the money we provide to the National Solidarity Program, which works from the bottom up, with better oversight and less waste than the big contracts. It is supporting economic development projects, often costing only a few tens of thousands of dollars, in thousands of Afghan towns and villages.

But these successes should not obscure the fact that planning, implementation, and oversight of programs need to be better, both for American taxpayers and for the Afghan people.

At a time when we face large budget deficits and money is scarce, I doubt the wisdom of spending billions of dollars this way. That is one reason the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee has recommended $1.3 billion less than the President requested for aid for Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011. Some argue that we should have cut even more.

We want to help the people of Afghanistan. They have suffered, and continue to suffer, every imaginable hardship. Combating poverty, empowering women whose political participation is essential to the future of that country, building more effective public institutions, and strengthening the rule of law in Afghanistan are in the long term interests of the United States. We know that in a country torn by conflict and where corruption is rampant, some projects will fail no matter how well designed they are. We understand that there is an unavoidable element of risk. But spending money fast is not the same as taking risks to help people.

I urge the administration to review its current assumptions, look critically at the results so far, take the time to understand the lessons learned, and reevaluate the amount of aid that Afghanistan can effectively absorb so progress is measured not by the rate at which money is spent, but by tangible improvements in the lives of the Afghan people.

Mr. President, next month, RSVP programs in Vermont's Rutland and Addison Counties will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of Bone Builders, a free exercise program that helps Vermonters combat and prevent osteoporosis. I congratulate all the participants and volunteers who have contributed to the success of Bone Builders and for reaching this milestone.

As we mark the 6-month milepost of the Affordable Health Care Act and the implementation of more and more of its benefits for Americans and their families, we all are increasingly attuned to the advantages of ending the corrosive health cost spiral, and the roles to be played by individual and organized preventive efforts like Bone Builders.

Bone Builders uses RSVP volunteers to lead weight training and balance exercise classes aimed at preventing fractures caused by osteoporosis. Classes help participants increase their muscular strength, balance, and overall bone density. Countless studies have

shown that women who participate in exercise programs like Bone Builders can gain bone density while nonparticipants will continue to lose bone density.

One particular story shared with me captures how important this program is to help keep Vermonters healthy. A few years ago during a particularly rough winter, a Bone Builders participant was walking to her bird feeder and fell, injuring herself. Yards away from her house and her phone, she found the strength to drag herself back to her house. Later she told an RSVP volunteer that she would not have been able to get inside to call for help if she had not participated in Bone Builders.

Medical experts estimate that there are 1.5 million fractures per year in the United States due to osteoporosis, costing nearly $20 million in health care services and treatments. Doctors in Vermont, understanding how important strength training programs are for seniors in order to prevent osteoporosis, have started to refer patients to local classes and hand out Bone Builders brochures. Since the program has been so successful and popular in Vermont, there are now more than 100 classes offered across our State.

The program has helped countless Vermonters not only improve their health but make connections in their communities. Some participants have recently lost spouses or have had health difficulties that may isolate them within their neighborhood and communities. The camaraderie and friendship that participants in Bone Builders find through classes often leads them to socialize outside of the program. In fact, the program has been so successful in Vermont that the Bone Builders model has been replicated in several other States, including California, Maine, Florida and Minnesota.

I am proud of the Vermonters who have taken the initiative and challenged themselves in these classes, and for the work of the volunteers who spend their time inspiring others to improve their health. I look forward to celebrating the work of RSVP Bone Builders and many other such anniversaries in the years ahead.

Mr. Presdient, today the Senate will pass sensible legislation with practical benefits for U.S. military veterans. The bill I have offered will add military veterans to the list of groups eligible to receive excess property donations from the Federal Government. This bill is a bipartisan effort to recognize the sacrifices that members of our Armed Forces make every day for our country, and I am proud to be its author. While it is only a small token of appreciation, this legislation gives back to veterans groups by allowing them access to a large inventory of goods from which they could not otherwise benefit. I appreciate the Senate acting swiftly to consider this bill.

The FOR VETS Act enables military veterans to receive surplus goods donations through the Federal Government's property distribution program. The types of goods donated through this program include computers, trucks, snowmobiles, home appliances and electronics. These items will be of valuable use to our military veterans, and I am pleased to sponsor legislation that gives them the right to claim useful goods through this program. The FOR VETS Act is legislation for and about American veterans.

The Administrator of General Services oversees this ongoing property liquidation and distribution program, which currently donates property to medical institutions, providers of assistance to the homeless, universities, and child care facilities, among others. Given the surplus of available goods, military veterans' groups are simply being added into this pool of recipients for property that might otherwise go unused.

I thank the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee ranking member, Senator Collins, for working with me on this bill. This was a bipartisan effort, as legislation to support our veterans should always be, and I look forward to its prompt consideration by the House, and to the President signing it into law.