Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on three more judicial nominations. With these votes, we will have confirmed 14 nominees this month and 52 nominees this year. We continue to achieve great progress in committee as well. Eighty-four percent of the judicial nominees submitted this Congress have been afforded hearings. Only 78 percent of President Bush's nominees had hearings for the comparable time period during his Presidency. We have reported 76 percent of the judicial nominees, compared to only 71 percent of President Bush's nominees. In total, the committee has taken positive action on 83 of the 99 nominees submitted this Congress, or 84 percent. Overall, we have confirmed over 70 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees since he took office. I will support the confirmation of each of the nominees today. I have a few words to say about each nominee. Mark Raymond Hornak is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Hornak graduated with a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1978, and with a J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1981. He began his legal career as a clerk for Judge Sprouse on the Fourth Circuit. Since his clerkship, the nominee has spent his entire career at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney where he practices labor and employment law, representing primarily employers and public agencies. Mr. Hornak received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Robert David Mariani is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a seat deemed to be a judicial emergency. He received his A.B., cum laude, from Villanova University in 1972, and his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1976. Mr. Mariani began his legal career by practicing labor, employment, commercial, real estate, civil, and criminal law. During this time, Mr. Mariani also served as the Solicitor to the Scranton-Dumore Sewer Authority. Beginning in 1980, Mr. Mariani dedicated himself to the exclusive practice of labor and employment law. His expertise includes collective bargaining, labor arbitration, and employee pension and benefits law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Mariani has practiced before Federal and State courts, the NLRB, the EEOC, and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Campaign. He also serves as counsel to the Northeast Pennsylvania School District Health Trust and the Berks County School District Health Trust. In addition to his practice, Mr. Mariani also serves as an arbitrator, where he resolves complex labor disputes through negotiation. Mr. Mariani received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I had some initial concerns regarding Mr. Mariani's nomination. Mr. Mariani has expressed labor policy preferences against at-will employment and in favor of card check for union employees. I asked him about these statements at his hearing and in followup questions. Based on his responses, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to be fair and impartial as a judge. Robert N. Scola is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida, another seat deemed to be a judicial emergency. Judge Scola earned his B.A. in 1973 from Stanford University and his J.D. from Boston College of Law in 1980. From 1980 to 1986, Judge Scola served as a prosecutor in State court. He began with misdemeanor cases and finished with prosecuting first degree murder and death penalty cases. From 1986 to 1995, Judge Scola served as a criminal defense attorney. He practiced solo for most of this time. From 1992 to 1993, he joined two other attorneys in criminal defense. Judge Scola specialized in criminal defense in both State and Federal court. Governor Lawton Chiles appointed Judge Scola to his current position as a circuit judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami-Dade County in 1995. Since then, the circuit has elected and reelected him without opposition in 1996, 2002, and 2008. He has served in the family division, civil division, and has also served as an appellate judge for county court and administrative law cases. Judge Scola received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Cathy Bissoon to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Today's vote marks the 49th judicial confirmation this year and the 11th in just 2 weeks. In committee we continue to achieve great progress as well. Eighty- four percent of the judicial nominees submitted this Congress have been afforded hearings. We have reported 77 percent of the judicial nominees. We have another hearing scheduled for later this week, our 16th nomination hearing of this year. In total, the committee has taken positive action on 85 of the 98 nominees submitted this Congress, or 87 percent. Let me say just a few words about the nominee we are considering today. Judge Bissoon graduated summa cum laude from Alfred University with a bachelor of arts in 1990. In 1993, she earned her juris doctorate from Harvard Law School. Judge Bissoon began her career at Reed Smith in Pittsburgh, PA, and then clerked for Judge Gary Lancaster of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Following her clerkship, Judge Bissoon returned to private practice at Reed Smith where she worked primarily with employment and labor litigation. Judge Bissoon also served as the Firmwide director of diversity and as the firmwide practice group leader of Reed Smith's employment practice group. From 2007 to 2008, Judge Bissoon continued to practice employment and labor law as the Director and Department head of the labor group at Cohen & Grigsby. In August 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania appointed Judge Bissoon as a U.S. magistrate judge. Judge Bissoon received a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating from the ABA Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I support this nomination and congratulate her on her professional accomplishments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter dated October 17, 2011, to the minority leader regarding S. 1385.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, can you believe it, we are finally here. After several years of waiting for these trade agreements to come to the Congress, it looks as though we are going to be able to vote on them, pass them, and send them to the President for his signature, and they will become law. Quite frankly, I thought soon after May 10, 2007, we would be voting on the Colombia trade agreement because President Bush was anxious to send it to the Hill. But the Democrats took over the Congress after the 2006 election, and the way it was negotiated by the Bush administration wasn't good enough. There wasn't enough negotiation to go far enough on labor and environment, so the new Democratic- controlled Congress said we have to do more on those negotiations for environment and labor. So more was renegotiated, and on May 10, 2007, there was a news conference announcing a bipartisan result between the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress on an agreement with Colombia on better environment and labor issues that had been reached. So a bipartisan agreement, particularly when you have a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, you would have expected that right away we would be having at least Colombia up here. At that time, South Korea wasn't completely negotiated. But the other party turned into a protectionist party and so nothing has happened until now. The goalposts have been moved several times, but the free trade reality of creating jobs has come back to the other political party. So I am glad we are here at last, even though it may be 4 years late. We are doing the right thing, even though it is being done later than it should have been done. Everybody knows that every day in this Congress, and rightly so, with 9.1 percent unemployment, the topic is jobs. And that is as it should be. The question gets asked a lot: What policies can we implement here in the Congress to create jobs or at least to encourage jobs. With over 9 percent unemployment in this country, we should, in fact, be talking about how to have an environment that creates jobs, and freeing up trade is one of the best ways to create jobs. These aren't just creating jobs, these are good-paying jobs. On average, jobs related to international trade pay 15 percent above the national average. The truth is for years we have known one clear and simple way to create jobs and stimulate growth in our economy, and that is international trade. The Colombia, South Korea, and Panama trade agreements will create and support thousands of jobs, and I believe even hundreds of thousands of jobs. So we must implement the trade deals reached with Panama, South Korea, and Colombia, and we must do it today, even though it should have been done, in the case of South Korea, a year ago and in the case of Panama and Colombia 3 or 4 years ago. We entered into these agreements back in 2006 and 2007, and there is no excuse why we have had to wait nearly 5 years--until now--to get to them. Yet congressional Democrats, and later President Obama, continued to move the goalposts, putting up barriers that prevented their consideration and passage until this day. There is no clearer or easier way of creating jobs in the near term, and good jobs lasting for a long period of time, than passing these trade bills and doing it now. Thank God the President has said he would sign them. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 100,000 jobs will be created by the implementation of these trade agreements. There are estimates from other sources that suggest the number of jobs may be even higher. The administration--and I believe rightly so--believes that the higher number of jobs being created would be in the few hundred thousand. The Obama administration estimates in the case of the Korea trade agreement alone 70,000 additional jobs for the U.S. workforce will be created. Not only do these trade agreements expand opportunities for U.S. workers, they also present tremendous opportunities for American agriculture. It is estimated that the Korean agreement could increase the price farmers receive for pigs by $10 per head. So you see in the case of Delaware, where Senator Carper says it is good for his poultry industry because that is so dominant there, where larger livestock is so dominant in the Midwest, in my State of Iowa, it is going to be a very good agreement as well. The Colombian agreement will level the playing field for U.S. corn farmers so they can begin to reclaim some of the market share they lost due to high tariffs for our products going down there. We have lost markets not just because of the high tariffs but because Colombia, in the last 5 years, has reached agreements with other countries that have allowed those countries, through their agricultural products-- particularly grain--to take over the share of the Colombian market that American agriculture previously had. The agreement with the country of Panama will bring about better opportunities for a variety of agricultural products, including beef, poultry, and pork, to name a few. We have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and so, as I have said two or three times, because I am satisfied we are going to get the job done, I am eager to cast my vote in support of all three agreements. But as the finish line nears on these agreements, the American people should be asking why President Obama has dragged his feet on these agreements for so long. There has been a lot of wasted time and tax dollars with stimulus programs that were supposed to create jobs but did not produce any measurable amount of jobs; whereas, if these agreements had been in place, these jobs we are talking about creating from this day forward would probably have already been created. The stimulus plan failed to do what President Obama promised Americans, but I am telling you these trade agreements will do what President Obama promises the American people, they will do in the way of creating jobs. Of course, the President wants to try it again with yet another costly stimulus program, as we were debating yesterday. We don't need more government spending to create jobs. We know that doesn't work. What we need to do is create an environment so the private sector will create jobs. We know what works, and these agreements are part of what works to create jobs. We need to continue opening markets for U.S. exports, and that is what these agreements will do. We need to pass these trade agreements and do it now. American workers need them now and the unemployed need the new jobs that will be created as a result of these agreements. But for the economic future of our country, we should not stop with these three trade agreements. The President can provide certainty to businesses, farmers, and workers by renewing his commitment to expanding trade opportunities. The best way to do that is to ask Congress to renew his authority to negotiate free-trade agreements through a long-used cooperative process between the Congress and the executive branch of government, involving the Congress giving the President what is called trade promotion authority so he can work further agreements. In January of 2010, the President said he wanted to double exports by 2015, and that was welcome news. But actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. The President has repeatedly delayed these trade deals. He has routinely dodged the question of when he would request authority for trade promotion to negotiate new agreements, and he has not laid out a clear strategic plan for in fact reaching the trade goals he expressed at the beginning of 2010. We are now nearly 2 years further down the road from that discussion he had. While it may be tough to reach the goals of doubling exports by 2015, we can still push on toward that goal, as we should. The more we do to open new markets and then get out of the way, the more we will help our struggling economy. There are three steps to continue helping U.S. businesses, farmers, and most of all the workers of America-- particularly the unemployed workers of America. First, we need to pass these three trade agreements with no more political gamesmanship by this administration, and I think we are over that hurdle. Secondly, Congress should pass trade promotion authority so the administration can responsibly seek opportunities for greater market access for U.S. products. Finally, the administration must make it a top priority to actually seek more opportunities for opening foreign markets for our products. We live in a global economy. We once led the way in forming trade agreements and expanding trade relationships. The rest of the world waited for the United States to take the first step. In recent years, we have lost our way. The rest of the world isn't going to wait on the United States as they did for the last 60 years. That is why we have lost market share in Colombia that I just spoke about as one example. We need to reestablish our position as a world leader in opening and expanding markets. Passing these trade agreements is crucial and long overdue, but it is a necessary first step. The next step is for the President to seek trade promotion authority and get back in the game leading the rest of the world. I urge my colleagues to help U.S. businesses, farmers, our workers, and, most importantly, our unemployed workers by voting in support of the Panama, Colombia, and South Korea trade agreements. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are going to consider the nomination of Jane Margaret Triche-Milazzo to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Before I make my remarks regarding the nomination, I want to respond to some comments made on the floor last Thursday evening because I am really amazed and very disappointed by the continuing allegations that Senate Republicans are delaying, obstructing, or otherwise blocking judicial nominations. One Member stated that we ``filibuster everything and require 60 votes on everything, including judges.'' That statement is without merit, and so I am here to set the record straight. We are making very good progress in the consideration and confirmation of President Obama's judicial nominations. In fact, we have taken positive action on 84 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees. We heard from five judicial nominees in committee last week, reported five more to the floor, and continue to hold regular votes on judicial nominees. President Obama's circuit court nominees are waiting, on average, only 66 days to receive a hearing. Now, compare that to the 247 days President Bush's circuit nominees were forced to wait. The same can be said for district court nominees, who have only waited 79 days under President Obama. Nominees from President Bush waited on average 100 days for a hearing. You can understand why I am disturbed because some people say there is a Republican effort not to cooperate on moving these judges. The reporting process has also favored President Obama's judicial nominees. On average, President Obama's circuit court nominees have only waited 116 days to be reported out of committee. President Bush's circuit court nominees waited over 369 days to be reported. District court nominees are no different. President Obama's nominees for the district courts have waited 129 days, while President Bush's district court nominees waited over 148 days. The accusations that we are filibustering or requiring 60 votes on everything including judges is not supported by the facts. We have confirmed 43 judicial nominees this year. With the vote today we will have confirmed over 66 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees since the beginning of his administration. During our consideration of the 98 judicial nominations submitted during this Congress, there have been two cloture votes. One of those nominees was confirmed. The other was withdrawn. In the last Congress there were four cloture motions made in relationship to 105 judicial nominations submitted. I remind my colleagues that at least 18 of President Bush's judicial nominations were subjected to cloture motions, many of them having multiple cloture votes. According to my count, there were approximately 30 cloture votes on Bush judicial nominees. There has to be a double standard on the part of my colleagues who somehow forget the history or somehow do not know how to count or sometimes, if they do read the numbers, do not know what the numbers mean. Another colleague of mine stated last Thursday night that he could not remember a time during his long service in the Senate when judges would sit on the calendar for months. It was not that long ago, while the current majority party was in the minority, when qualified nominees sat on the Senate calendar for months. In most cases, when finally afforded a vote, they received unanimous support. These included Juan Sanchez, who was nominated for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; William Duffey, Jr., who was nominated for the Northern District of Georgia; Mark Filip, who was nominated for the Northern District of Illinois; Gary Sharpe, who was nominated for the Northern District of New York; and James Robart, who was nominated for the Western District, State of Washington. These are just a few of President Bush's district court nominees who sat on the calendar for well over 3 months, yet received unanimous support in their confirmation votes. I wonder if my colleagues remember William Haynes, President Bush's nominee to sit on the Fourth Circuit. He waited 638 days on the Senate calendar in the 108th Congress alone before being returned to the President. All in all, Mr. Haynes put his life on hold for 1,173 days without ever receiving an up-or-down vote. Another of President Bush's circuit court nominees, Raymond Kethledge, waited 23 months before being confirmed by the Senate and was then confirmed--can you believe it--on a voice vote. I am not providing these facts to engage in a tit-for-tat, but when I hear colleagues misstate facts and can't understand numbers and can't count, I have to set the record straight. Shortly we will vote on Jane M. Triche-Milazzo, who is nominated to be the U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor's degree from Nicholls State University in 1977 and then worked for some time as an elementary school teacher before beginning to work in her father's law office. In 1992, Judge Triche-Milazzo graduated with a juris doctorate from Louisiana State University, Paul M. Herbert Law Center. She spent the entirety of her legal career practicing at Risley Triche, LLC, first as an associate and later to become a partner. In 2008 she was elected judge for Louisiana's 23rd judicial district. She is a Louisiana State District Court judge for Division D of the 23rd judicial district bench. She was the first female judge elected to that judicial district bench. Judge Triche-Milazzo received a unanimous ``qualified'' rating from the ABA Committee on the Federal Judiciary, so I am pleased to support this fine nominee and thank her for her service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to take a few moments before we have a vote this afternoon to discuss a serious concern I have about the original stimulus package, and I want the Senate to consider my remarks and my research as we consider the President's latest modified so- called jobs bill--in actuality, stimulus bill No. 2. I want to ensure the taxpayers' money is spent responsibly on programs that create viable, long-term jobs, not lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The marching orders for the stimulus funding under the Obama administration have been ``spend now, chase later.'' But when governments spend money quickly, it leads to massive waste, fraud, and abuse. President Obama promised us he would use ``the new tools that the Recovery Act gives us to watch the taxpayers' money with more vigor and transparency than ever'' before. He also said that ``if a Federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money,'' he would ``put a stop to it.'' It is past time for the President to live up to his words because we all know, up to now, that certainly hasn't been the case. I will give several examples. A year ago, I asked the Department of Labor to explain why $500 million in green job training grants had been spent when the Department had just asked the public to help them define just what a green job is. Now, over a year later, the Department of Labor's inspector general issued an audit report showing that the President's promises are much different from reality. The reality is that only 8,000 program participants found employment--only 10 percent of the promised results. The reality is that $300 million still remains unspent in the program. The reality is that this money won't be spent or produce the jobs before the grants expire. But instead of learning from this failure and using this money for more effective job training, the administration continues to push good money after bad into so-called green jobs, which I don't think has actually even yet been defined to this very day. The administration left much of stimulus 1 oversight to the inspector general offices of the respective departments but has largely disregarded their findings and recommendations. I strongly support efforts of our inspectors general and am extremely frustrated that the administration ignores rather than enforces the recommendations of the various inspectors general. Thanks to the audit work performed by these IGs, I have also questioned the administration's ability to track stimulus funding after it was distributed to the first recipients. For instance, the Department of Education provided $1.7 billion to the State of New York even though the inspector general reported that the State has ``serious internal deficiencies'' that would make tracking the money extremely difficult. The Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General released a series of reports that questioned why additional funding was given to troubled housing authorities with significant financial and management problems. HUD Secretary Donovan stated that these housing authorities needed that money to improve their inventory and make needed upgrades. The weatherization program has also been fraught with waste. The inspector general found that in many cases contractors never did the work, and some work was so shoddy that it endangered the health and safety of the owners. I continue to raise strong concerns about the Department of Energy's failure to monitor State and territory programs. I am not aware that the administration has ever demanded any of the taxpayers' money back, even for the blatant cases of waste, fraud, and abuse. The administration also spent $84 million of the stimulus funding to establish the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to guard against wasteful spending. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board can hold hearings and compel testimony about stimulus fund waste. I have referred two cases to this board, but so far it has refused to use this authority. In the first case, HUD's Office of Inspector General questioned nearly $32 million of stimulus money spent by the Philadelphia Housing Authority to rehabilitate scattered-site housing. According to the inspector general's report, most of the work was never done and the housing authority couldn't provide detailed invoices to show what the contractors were charging the government for. I also referred the $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy to Solyndra because I understand the board may have detected possible problems with guarantees. So President Obama made lots of promises about transparency and accountability when he asked Congress to pass the first stimulus bill. Before we consider giving him another over $400 billion, the President needs to turn his promises into reality or it is the American taxpayers who will lose once again, even beyond the examples I have already given. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this latest modified tax-and-spend proposal that even the Washington Post has called ``political.'' I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here to discuss S. 1619, the currency exchange rate oversight bill. I support this bill. Back in 2007, I helped draft some of the language that is contained in this current bill. China is a big beneficiary of international trade, yet it fails to allow its currency to float freely. As a result, U.S. exporters get cheated. It is time we do something to send the message that enough is enough. I am all for free trade, I want free trade. Free trade helps our farmers, manufacturers, and our Nation as a whole. There is talk that this bill will cause a trade war with China. I am not convinced that is the case. Plus, keep in mind, this bill is about more than China. This bill is a much needed overhaul of a law that dates back to 1988. This bill puts in meaningful consequences for countries that do not address their currency manipulation. All of that being said, I have to say I do not support the way this bill is being brought to a vote. While I want a vote on this bill and I want to vote for this bill, my colleagues should have the right to offer and debate their respective amendments. The majority leader's use of cloture to prevent the meaningful debate on motions is unacceptable. It is more of the same partisan politics that the American people are tired of. And in this instance, when there is bipartisan support for the bill, the majority leader's heavyhanded approach just doesn't make sense. That is why, even though I support the currency bill, I am voting against cloture. If cloture fails, I sincerely hope we can have a meaningful debate and still move toward passage of this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I have the great honor and pleasure to recognize this year's Fellows for the Davidson Institute for Talent Development. This year, 18 young people under the age of 18 have been awarded scholarships of $50,000, $25,000, or $10,000 for having demonstrated superior ability and achievement and having completed a significant piece of work in the areas of science, music, literature, mathematics, or technology. I would like to take this time to introduce each of these scholars and the various projects they have undertaken. In the area of science, we have eight young students with remarkable projects that have contributed to scientific progress. Among this group of scholars is Shalini Ramanan. A 17-year-old young woman from Richland, WA, Shalini Ramanan worked with a natural dietary component of the spice turmeric called BC to test its effectiveness in treating cardiovascular diseases. Through cell migration assays and western blot techniques, she discovered that BC inhibited platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-induced vascular smooth muscle cell migration and signaling. Using bioinformatics, she identified target genes connected with signaling pathways. PDGF-stimulated cell-migration and proliferation are key pathological events in a variety of diseases including atherosclerosis and cancer. Her studies may help design and characterize novel drug molecules with clinical applications. A 17-year-old young man from Mahopac, NY, Jayanth Krishnan developed an approach to infer regulatory mechanisms governing changes in gene expression and identified possible proteins that induce cancer. By creating a web interface that could predict transcription factors for dis-regulated genes, and mathematical models using MATLAB, he was able to predict proteins that are correlated with certain cancer families. Using this information, he calculated several combinations of drugs, for 60 different cancers, that have the potential to counteract the inducing agents and better guide therapeutics. Lucy Wang, a 17-year-old young woman from Garnet Valley, PA, developed a predictive model to detect adolescent depression with an overall correct classification of 83.66 percent. Untreated depression is the No. 1 cause of suicide and the third leading cause of death among teenagers. Using factor analysis and logistic regression, she focused on quantifying variables that may lead to adolescent depression, including student self-reported experiences and demographics. Lucy's model will offer a robust instrument for school psychologists to evaluate the risk of future depression. A 17-year-old young man from Houston, TX, Sunil Pai constructed an inexpensive, nanotechnology-based system to determine quantum energies of superoxide. By examining oxygen in the liquid phase instead of the gas phase, his potentiostat system can determine the quantum structure for the electron attachment reaction of oxygen to superoxide. The determination of oxygen's physical properties is essential to fully understanding the role oxygen and many free radicals have in cell processes. This experimentation method may establish other molecular properties that will offer new insights into biological and environmental processes. Caleb Kumar, a 15-year-old young man from Blaine, MN, developed an algorithm that automates the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is on the rise with more than 71,000 new cases in 2009. By first identifying indicative bladder cancer cellular characteristics, Caleb programmed morphometric algorithms to quantitatively examine the bladder cell images, and then engineered a Java neural network that differentiates cancerous cells from normal cells based on shape, color and curvature. Caleb's software is accurate, quick and inexpensive compared to current methods, and has the potential to provide faster, cheaper and more precise diagnoses of cytological diseases. A 17-year-old young man from Bloomfield Hills, MI, Siddhartha Jena demonstrated that the immediate effect of elevated cholesterol is dysfunction of active water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide transport by the red blood cells. Using a spectrofluorometer and Zeta Sizer, he showed that exposure of red blood cells to two compounds: ONO-RS-082 and glyburide, results in an amelioration of cholesterol's detrimental effects. Results from his work broaden the understanding of one of the most significant health risks facing our society, and the possible mechanism for its future treatment and management. Benjamin Clark, a 15-year-old young man from Lancaster, PA, determined the frequency at which M stars form close binary star systems using spectroscopic data from over 39,000 M dwarf stars. Using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, SDSS, Benjamin designed a methodology to use the extremely large, but low resolution and signal-to-noise ratio database, to calculate the close binary fraction. Star formation has long been an open question in astrophysics and this data can be used to test theories of how this process occurs. A 16-year-old young woman from Lancaster, PA, Marian Bechtel designed a seismo-acoustic method for detecting landmines. Approximately 70 million landmines plague 80 countries worldwide, claiming one victim every 22 minutes. With Marian's method, two high-sensitivity, non- contact microphones are swept above buried landmines that resonate in response to a remote seismic source. The recorded sound is noise- cancelled in real-time, creating a characteristic, audible null in the noise-cancelled waveform that isolates the mine's location. This efficient and inexpensive method could make important contributions to humanitarian demining. Raja Selvakumar, a 15-year-old young man from Alpharetta, GA, developed the gastro microbial fuel cell, GMFC. Based on the microbial fuel cell, the GMFC generates electricity using gastrobacteria, to be used to power capsular nanobots. Current lithium ion batteries in biomedical capsular nanobots are not able to sustain power for long periods of time; the GMFC has the potential to solve this problem. The GMFC-powered capsular nanobot can play an important role in treating gastrointestinal diseases through intracellular diagnosis and surgery. In the area of mathematics, there are three young people who I would like to recognize at this time. Matthew Bauerle, a 16-year-old young man from Fenton, MI, outlined how the Newton direction can be computed by solving a weighted linear least squares problem. When fitting a model to data, such as a line to a set of points, the least squares method is currently the most popular technique. Matthew's work focused on minimizing the L1 norm of the error which is the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors. Matthew's work has potential in the medical imaging and scanning fields, as well as facial recognition and fluid dynamics simulations. A 16-year-old young woman from Carmel, IN, Rebecca Chen studied a generalized version of the Yang-Baxter equation. The Yang-Baxter equation provides a systematic method for discovering braid group representations, important in topology and quantum information science. Using algebraic computations and computer numerical checking, she classified three families of 8x8 matrix solutions to the generalized Yang-Baxter equation. These solutions provide a way to generate braiding quantum gates needed in quantum computing, and contribute to the ongoing effort to build a large-scale quantum computer, bringing advances in fields as far ranging as materials sciences and cryptography. Anirudh Prabhu, a 16-year-old young man from West Lafayette, IN, established the first nontrivial analytic lower bounds for odd perfect numbers. The search for odd perfect numbers is one of the oldest unsolved problems in mathematics. Many upper bounds for odd perfect numbers are established, however, no nontrivial analytic lower bounds had been reported prior to Anirudh's work. By narrowing the gap between analytic upper and lower bounds, his work suggests an approach for proving the nonexistence of odd perfect numbers and could contribute to data encryption technology. Two remarkable young people received awards for their technology projects. A 16-year-old young man from Columbia, SC, Arjun Aggarwal created GNut-III, an anthropometric interactive robot with vision, intelligence and speech. He found the lack of an economically efficient and functional human robot has prohibited researchers from continuing to expand the field of robotics. To counter this, the GNut-III is economically efficient and functional for testing robotic algorithms. In addition to the GNut-III, Arjun has outlined a scattered open source community to work on a standardized platform that could transform robotics in the same way it has transformed computing. A 16-year-old young woman from Rochester, MN, Cheenar Banerjee developed a method for emotion detection by computers. It remains a challenge for computers to recognize and respond correctly to the emotional states of an interactive user. After removing some facial detail by converting facial images to black-and-white sketches, Cheenar used fractal analyses to differentiate among emotions using the fractal dimensions. This process has the potential to be simpler, cheaper and more effective than current techniques of emotion detection by computers. In the area of music, I would like to recognize three more scholars. A 14-year-old young woman from Seattle, WA, Simone Porter, in her violin portfolio, Performance as Soundtrack of Process and Identity, examines the progression of performance preparation, from the development of technique and interpretation, to the emergence of a professional identity. This process led her to comprehend the transformative, inspirational and transcendent potency music possesses. Through performance, Simone believes music has the potential to aid our society, and help achieve a kinder, more tolerant attitude toward ourselves and our natural environment. Simone was a featured performer on PBS' ``From the Top at Carnegie Hall.'' A 16-year-old young woman from Gates Mills, OH, Arianna Korting, in her portfolio, Celebration of Life through the Piano, showcased Haydn, Ginastera and Liszt. Through the piano, she hopes to bring audiences into the lives of the great composers to experience their humor, tenderness and brilliance. She believes music has the power to transform space and time because it has been a constant presence even through the most difficult moments in history. Arianna has been featured on NPR's ``From the Top,'' and started The Animato Project, an interactive program of classical music for elementary school children. Reylon Yount, a 16-year-old young man from San Francisco, CA, created a yangqin, or Chinese hammered dulcimer, portfolio that has contributed to the preservation of Chinese music, to the introduction of Chinese music to people in the United States, and to the overall interconnection of the music world. His work attempts to take people past the conventional shapes and forms of Western music, helping them appreciate the universality of art. He hopes that such cross-cultural music will build a deeper connection between the East and West, and inspire people to love all music. And finally, I would like to introduce Bonnie Nortz, a 17-year old young woman with superior achievement in the area of literature. Bonnie's portfolio, Run and Run and Run, explores relationships, identity, materialism, oppression and emotion, and covers topics as broad as tourism, grammar, dreams, cartography, winter and even pre- calculus. Her goal was to find the extraordinary in the mundane, the pure in the imperfect, and to describe that moment of awakening when everything is just the way it should be. Bonnie hopes to teach others how to go through life with an everlasting energy and curiosity and to appreciate the fantastic emotional and intellectual complexity that comprises our human existence. I have long said that America's gifted and talented students possess remarkable potential for our great Nation. These 18 young individuals have demonstrated more than potential. They have already made significant contributions to their fields and our society in their short lives and one can scarcely begin to imagine how much they will contribute to their fields and society in the years to come, thanks in no small part to the encouragement of the Davidson Institute as well as their, family, friends, and mentors. These young men and women are an inspiration and a reminder that if we fully support our most talented young people, we can look forward to a bright future.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will confirm six more of President Obama's judicial nominees. Four of these vacancies have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. With these votes, we will have confirmed over 44 percent of the judicial nominees submitted by President Obama during this Congress, and 66 percent of all his judicial nominees. As I have stated, the confirmation of executive and judicial appointments is one of the highest responsibilities of the Senate. It is a duty I take seriously. It is not, as some have suggested--a pro forma process. We are not here to merely rubberstamp the President's nominees. Sometimes that process takes a little time. It is the Senate's right and duty to review thoroughly the record, qualifications, and temperament of nominees. Above all, the process is to be treated with respect and with dignity. This is important for the nominees, for the Senate, and for public confidence in our constitutional process. So I was disturbed to read recent news reports regarding what was described as an induction ceremony in the Northern District of California for Judge Edward Chen. I believe, at this event, Judge Chen showed disrespect to the Senate and to the confirmation process. I regret that I would have to spend any time on this, and take away from the confirmation of the pending nominees. But there are important points that need to be addressed to protect our process and our members. The Senate confirmed Judge Chen last May by a 52-46 vote. Needless to say, he was not a consensus nominee. Among the concerns about this nomination was Judge Chen's judicial philosophy, his willingness to adopt the ``empathy standard,'' and concern that he would not set aside his personal views--largely shaped by his long association with the ACLU. Remarks reportedly made at this recent event indicate our concerns were valid. I have not seen a transcript of the event, but an article entitled ``Chen Toasted, Republicans Roasted'' makes this look more like a political rally rather than a judicial event. Chief Judge Ware, in commenting on Judge Chen's confirmation quipped, ``It made me wonder if Judge Chen should be running for political office.'' That is what many of us thought was more appropriate for Judge Chen, rather than appointment as a Federal judge. The news article describes remarks made by Judge Chen, which I can only describe as mocking one of our members, Senator Sessions. This is distasteful, if not ironic. It was only after a personal appeal by Senator Feinstein to Senator Sessions that the vote on Judge Chen went forward. Senator Sessions agreed to that vote and pressed other Members to let the vote proceed. If the press accounts are accurate, I believe Judge Chen owes an apology to Senator Sessions. Judge Chen went on to again embrace his ACLU background, stating, ``Having the ACLU in your DNA is not a disease, it's an honor.'' As I have said before, Judge Chen's advocacy on behalf of the ACLU is not disqualifying, by itself. But I have to wonder about the impartiality of Judge Chen. More importantly, what are potential litigants appearing before Judge Chen to think. If the ACLU is an opposing litigant, is there any way to think Judge Chen can be fair and impartial. I would think mandatory recusal would be required in any ACLU case coming before him. Federal Judges must abide by the code of conduct for United States Judges. I will withhold judgment on whether or not Judge Chen violated those canons, but in my opinion he clearly went too far--particularly with regard to the requirement to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, and to refrain from political activity. I hope Judge Chen realizes the important responsibility he has and acts accordingly in the future. I also hope this is a lesson to other nominees--that they treat this process with respect, even after confirmation and appointment. I have been working throughout this Congress to confirm consensus nominees. I continue to remind my colleagues of the progress we have made. With a hearing in the Judiciary Committee scheduled for tomorrow, 85 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees will have received a hearing. At this point in President Bush's presidency, only 77 percent had been afforded a hearing. Not only have we processed a higher percentage of nominees, but we have done it in shorter times. President Obama's circuit court nominees have only had to wait, on average, 66 days for a hearing. President Bush's circuit court nominees were forced to wait 247 days. In fact, we will be hearing from a Fourth Circuit nominee tomorrow after only 26 days in committee. None of President Bush's circuit court nominees were afforded a hearing that quickly. President Bush's Fourth Circuit nominees were particularly treated in a harsh manner. My friends on the other side of the aisle allowed four qualified and consensus nominees to languish at a time when the Fourth Circuit was one-quarter vacant. President Obama's district court nominees have also received better treatment. On average, they have only waited 79 days for a hearing. President Bush's district court nominees waited 247 days. These nominees are also being reported out of committee at a quicker pace as well. On average, President Obama's circuit and district court nominees have been reported more than 66 days faster than President Bush's. All in all, we have taken positive action on 85 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees this Congress. Even though I am proud of this progress, I must note, I will continue to focus on quality confirmed over quantity confirmed. Shortly, we will be voting on Henry Floyd, who is nominated to the appeals court for the Fourth Circuit. This is President Obama's fifth nominee to be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit alone. President Bush's nominee to the Fourth Circuit from South Carolina, Steve Matthews, did not receive the same treatment. In fact, he went 484 days without so much as a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote. Not only that, he was blocked from being considered. I would note the seat to which he was nominated was subsequently filled by a nominee from North Carolina, rather than South Carolina where the vacancy arose. Another vacancy we will be voting on tonight is the District of Arizona seat held by the late Judge Roll before his tragic and untimely death on January 8, 2011. The entire judicial community felt this great loss. After Judge Roll's murder, I repeatedly implored the administration to focus on filling this seat as quickly as possible. It was deemed to be a judicial emergency instantly. However, it took over 5 months for the administration to nominate Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps to the seat, even though she was a sitting magistrate judge. Since the President took his time in submitting a nomination, I felt it appropriate to work with the chairman to move this nomination through in an expeditious manner. Nominated in late June of this year, Judge Zipps received her hearing a mere 34 days later. Judge Zipps was reported to the floor shortly after we returned from the August recess and I am happy we have continued this fast pace and are confirming her to a lifetime position today. In addition to Judge Floyd and Judge Zipps, we will confirm Nannette Jolivette Brown to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Nancy Torresen to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine; William Francis Kuntz to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; and Marina Garcia Marmolejo to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. I am pleased to support each of these nominees. I thank them for their public service and congratulate them on their prior accomplishments and confirmation today. I would like to say a few words about each of the nominees. Henry F. Floyd, is nominated to be a circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. This seat has been deemed to be a judicial emergency. Mr. Floyd is currently a U.S. district court judge for the District of South Carolina. He was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2003, and has sat by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit several times. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Floyd was elected by the South Carolina General Assembly to serve as a circuit court judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in 1992. He began his legal career in private practice, first as a solo practitioner and eventually forming the law firm of Floyd & Welmaker, which then merged with Acker & Acker. He focused on civil, criminal and domestic litigation as well as trust and commercial law. He also served as an attorney for Pickens County while maintaining his full-time law partnership. Judge Floyd is a graduate from Wofford College and received a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina. It was during his second year of law school when Judge Floyd was elected to the South Carolina House of Representative, serving three terms until 1978. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Floyd with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating. Nannette Jolivette Brown is nominated to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Ms. Brown currently serves as city attorney for the city of New Orleans, where she represents the city as its chief legal officer. Prior to that, Ms. Brown was in private practice, working on real estate, environmental, personal injury, insurance, commercial and business law. She taught a number of courses at Southern University Law Center, and was a clinical professor at Loyola University. From 1994 to 1996, Ms. Brown served as the Director of Sanitation for New Orleans. She was also a teaching fellow at Tulane Law School. Ms. Brown is a graduate from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and received her J.D. and L.L.M from Tulane Law School. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Ms. Brown with a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating. Nancy Torresen is nominated to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine. Since 2001, Ms. Torresen has served in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Maine. She has investigated and prosecuted Federal crimes in the northern half of the district. From 1994 to 2001, the Department of Justice detailed Ms. Torresen to the Maine Department of the Attorney General Criminal Division in the Appellate Section. In this position, Ms. Torresen represented the state of Maine in appeals of serious violent crime convictions. From 1990 to 1994, Ms. Torresen served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maine. She represented a variety of federal agencies in litigation involving medical malpractice, employment and discrimination cases. She began her legal career as a law clerk with the Honorable Conrad K. Cyr, of the United States District Court for the District of Maine. In 1988, she joined Williams and Connolly as an associate, working on medical malpractice, libel, and contract disputes. Ms. Torresen is a graduate from Hope College with a B.A. and from the University of Michigan School Of Law with a juris doctorate. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated Ms. Torresen as ``Well Qualified.'' William Francis Kuntz, II, is nominated to the Eastern District of New York. This seat also has been deemed to be a judicial emergency. Since 1986, he has been a partner with a number of private law firms. While he has focused his practice on commercial litigation, he has represented financial services institutions, and large industrial entities. From 1987 through 2010, Mr. Kuntz was appointed by Mayors Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani and Bloomberg, and confirmed by the New York City Council, to serve on the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, CCRB. As a commissioner, he has reviewed thousands of complaints filed by citizens against New York City police officers. Mr. Kuntz has taught courses in American Legal History at Brooklyn Law School. Mr. Kuntz received his bachelor of arts, a master of arts, a juris doctorate, and a Ph.D from Harvard University. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated Mr. Kuntz as ``Well Qualified.'' Marina Garcia Marmolejo, is nominated to the Southern District of Texas. This is another judicial emergency seat. Ms. Marmolejo is currently a partner with Reid Davis LLP., where she has been focusing on complex commercial cases. Prior to this, she served as Of Counsel for two firms, working on complex Federal and State criminal defense matters, public corruption matters, criminal tax fraud, health care fraud, and mortgage fraud. In 1999, Ms. Marmolejo worked briefly for the law offices of Jesus M. Dominguez before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas. As an AUSA, Ms. Marmolejo was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force where she handled narcotics cases and money laundering investigations. After graduating from law school, Ms. Marmolejo joined the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Western District of Texas as Assistant Public Defender where she remained until 1998. She then moved to the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Texas where she again served as an Assistant Public Defender until 1999. Ms. Marmolejo is a graduate of the University of Incarnate Word and received her master of arts from St. Mary's University Graduate School, and her Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from St. Mary's School of Law. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Ms. Marmolejo unanimously ``Qualified.'' Jennifer Guerin Zipps, nominated to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona. As I mentioned, this seat has been deemed to be a judicial emergency. Judge Zipps has served as a U.S. magistrate judge since 2005. Prior to her serving on the bench, Judge Zipps served as an assistant U.S. attorney. While in that role, Judge Zipps was promoted to chief of the civil division. She also has private practice experience, serving as an associate in the firm of Molloy, Jones & Donahue. She began her legal career as a clerk for Judge William C. Canby of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Zipps is a graduate of the University of Arizona and received her juris doctorate from Georgetown Law. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Zipps unanimously ``Well Qualified.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are on judicial nominees; is that right?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to, first of all, yield such time as he might consume, before I speak, to the Senator from South Carolina so he can speak about one of the judges that are up for nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of John Andrew Ross to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, and also Timothy M. Cain, to be district judge for the District of South Carolina. Both seats have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. With these votes, we have confirmed 67 article 3 judicial nominees during this Congress. Of these, 23 have been for such judicial emergency type districts. I am pleased that we continue to have great progress in lessening the burden of our overworked courts, particularly concentrating upon judicial emergencies. I am somewhat surprised in the delay in bringing these votes we are going to have today to the full Senate, at the majority leader's request. Senate Republicans cleared these votes nearly 2 weeks ago, with the anticipation that the Senate would vote on these nominees last Monday, September 12. So I hope everyone understands these nominees could have been confirmed 8 days ago. It was not the Republicans then holding up these for the last 8 days. As I noted, we continue to make great progress in proceeding to President Obama's judicial nominees. These votes today are somewhat of a milestone. They are the 99th and 100th confirmation of President Obama's judicial nominees. As of today the Senate has confirmed 63 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees since the beginning of his Presidency. Earlier today the Senate Judiciary Committee held its 14th nomination hearing. We have now heard from 82 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees this Congress. At this point in the 108th Congress, only 79 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees had received a hearing. We have also reported 69 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees compared to 67 percent of President Bush's. I am pleased with the progress and will continue to move forward with consensus nominees. Now I would like to say a few words about these two nominees. John Ross is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. He presently serves as a circuit judge for the 21st Judicial District in Missouri. Appointed to that position by the Governor in January 2000, Judge Ross was retained by the voters in Missouri in the retention elections of 2002 and 2008. During his tenure, Judge Ross was elected assistant presiding judge by his judicial colleagues in that circuit and served in that office from 2005 to 2009. He was subsequently elected as presiding judge and has served in that capacity from 2009 until now. Prior to his appointment to the State bench, Judge Ross served as county counselor for St. Louis County and in the St. Louis County's Prosecuting Attorney's Office. He is a graduate of Emory University and the Emory School of Law. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Ross ``well qualified.'' Timothy M. Cain is nominated to be U.S. district judge of South Carolina. Judge Cain presently serves as a South Carolina Family Court judge in the Tenth Judicial Circuit. The South Carolina General Assembly elected him to that position in 2000 and reelected him in 2004 and 2010. In 2005 the chief justice of South Carolina's Supreme Court appointed Judge Cain to serve as the chief administrative judge for the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit. By designation of the chief justice, Judge Cain also served as acting associate justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court on several occasions. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Cain had a distinguished private practice in South Carolina. He maintained a general practice and assisted in representing several local governments and municipal clients. During his years of private practice he also served the public sector. Judge Cain served as a part-time assistant public defender with the Oconee Defender Corporation in that State. From 1988 to 1990 he served as assistant solicitor general for the Solicitor's Office of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, where he represented South Carolina in prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases and various criminal cases. In 1992 the county supervisor appointed Judge Cain as county attorney for that home county. He is a graduate from the University of South Carolina and the University of South Carolina School of Law. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Cain ``qualified.'' I congratulate both nominees and yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate for about 6 or 7 minutes on a trade issue that normally I would be offering an amendment on. I am not going to offer an amendment during this debate because I think it is very important we move forward with this legislation so, hopefully, the President will stop moving the goalposts and send to the Senate Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. But the reason I address the issue of the general system of preferences is because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of a lot of nations--that may not be considered developed yet but advanced very rapidly in the last 20 years--taking advantage of our GSP system. I do not mind them taking advantage of our GSP system, but what irritates me is a lot of times in WTO negotiations, they are the very same countries that are finding fault with the United States and Europe not giving enough on agricultural issues, as an example, at the very same time these countries have very high tariffs on our products getting into their country, when they get, under GSP, their products into our country duty free. So, Mr. President, I want you to know I appreciate the fact we are finally debating the merits of trade legislation. Most people agree that one way we can help our economy is by opening and expanding markets for American-made products. I look forward to the President, as I just said, sending us the free-trade agreements. In the meantime, much of the discussion has centered on the bill before us, the GSP and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. While it is important for us to have a discussion on the merits of TAA, I do not want my colleagues to overlook the significance of the underlying bill. This bill extends the general system of preferences. This program provides one-way--and I want to emphasize--duty-free access to U.S. markets. So over a period of several decades, we have been awfully good to a lot of countries that we think we ought to help and we have been helping. The basic principle, then, behind the GSP is to provide certain goods made in developing countries with preferential market access to the United States in the form of this duty-free status. The intention is to help spur economic growth in developing nations. I support the premise that we can help developing countries by promoting trade. But I can also tell you that our patience is getting very thin with some of those countries, particularly when we see them not reciprocating in a way that they have the capability of reciprocating. Our trade relations, however, should increasingly be based upon reciprocity by which other countries will provide the same open access to U.S. exports. In other words, as those countries become more developed, we need to require that they move toward operating on a level playing field with the United States. Congress needs to take, then, a hard look at GSP and scrutinize whether it is helping accomplish the U.S. trade agenda. I think we would find some of these countries coming up short. In another environment of discussing trade, I would be taking a different approach: that we would send a clear signal to some of these countries of our impatience, and they are going to have to graduate off GSP. If other nations believe they will always enjoy GSP, then what incentives do they have to open their markets to U.S. goods? That is why we ought to very much advance the system of graduating off GSP with some of those countries. There are nations that benefit from GSP that, quite frankly, have moved beyond what I consider to be developing countries. I continue to question why we provide preferential treatment at all to the products from countries such as Brazil and India. These countries have at times worked against the trade interests of the United States, including resistance to reducing high tariffs on U.S. exports. Both of these countries have countless products competing in the global market with U.S. products. I am not offering an amendment, as I have already said, to this GSP bill, not because I do not think my position is good but because I want to see the pending trade agreements submitted and approved by the Congress. I am not interested in raising any barriers that make that task more difficult than the President has already made it. However, I will continue to push for reform of GSP. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this program and consider the points I have raised in the past and I am raising right now but not raising in the form of an amendment that ought to be offered at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Norm Eisen to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic at the Department of State for the following reasons. I object to the proceeding to the nomination because of Mr. Eisen's role in the firing of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, CNCS, and his lack of candor about that matter when questioned by congressional investigators. The details of Mr. Eisen's role in the firing and his misrepresentations about that matter are detailed in the Joint Minority Staff Report of the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Finance Committee, dated November 20, 2009. I would also ask unanimous consent that a letter of January 12, 2011, sent by myself and Congressman Issa to Mr. Bauer, then counsel to the President, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in cosponsoring a resolution designating the month of October 2011 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month. The abuse of prescription drugs and cold medicine is currently the fastest growing drug abuse trend in the country. According to the most recent National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), more and more people are turning to using controlled substances without a doctor's prescription. The same survey shows that nearly one-third of all respondents who initiated drug use in the past year used prescription drugs. People between the ages of 12 and 25 are the most common group to abuse these drugs. More people are dying because of this abuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the unintentional deaths involving prescription narcotics increased 117 percent from the years 2001 to 2005. In my home State of Iowa, the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy reports that at least 40 people died from an overdose of prescription painkillers in 2009. This represents a sharp increase in the last decade when only three people died from painkiller overdoses in 2000. Abuse of over-the-counter, OTC, cough and cold medicines is also alarming. While these common cold medicines are safe and effective if used properly, the abuse of these medicines can also be destructive. According to a study conducted by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, nearly 1 in 10 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 have intentionally abused cough medicine to get high off its main ingredient dextromethorphan. This is a problem that cannot be ignored. Millions of Americans use these medicines every year to treat a variety of symptoms due to injury, depression, insomnia, and the effects of the common cold. Many legitimate users of these drugs often do not use as much medication as the prescription contains. As a result, these drugs remain in the family medicine cabinet for months or years because people forget about them or do not know how to properly dispose of them. However, many of these drugs, when not properly used or administered, are just as addictive and deadly as street drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine. According to the NSDUH, more than half of the people who abuse these drugs reported that they obtained OTC and prescription drugs from a friend or relative or from the family medicine cabinet. As a result, groups and organizations like the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America have been reaching out to communities throughout the Nation to raise awareness of this growing drug abuse trend and encourage communities to tackle the problem head on. Many community antidrug coalitions, including those in Iowa, public health officials, and law enforcement officials have been holding townhalls, organizing community ``clean out your medicine cabinet'' events, and holding many other events to raise awareness of this growing abuse in an effort to reverse this trend. We can stop the growing trend of medicine abuse in its tracks, but it will require all sectors of the community to join together to make it happen. The National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month resolution promotes the message that over-the-counter and prescription medicines must be taken as directed, and when used recreationally or in large doses they can have serious and deadly consequences. This resolution will help remind parents that access to drugs that are abused doesn't just happen in alleys and on the streets, but can often occur right in the home. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to rebut the points Senator Sessions made, and I do acknowledge, as he said on the floor, that 2 or more years ago I was on the same page he is on this issue. What has intervened, in the meantime, that causes me to differ from the position Senator Sessions is taking? It is a district court case giving justice to a company--as one client--that was denied that sort of justice because bureaucrats were acting in an arbitrary and capricious way. Senator Sessions makes the point you get equal justice under the law from the judicial branch of government and that Congress should not try to override that sort of situation. Congress isn't overriding anything with the language in the House bill that he wants to strike because that interest was satisfied by a judge's decision; saying that a particular entity was denied equal justice under the law because a bureaucrat, making a decision on just exactly what counts as 60 days, was acting in an arbitrary and capricious way. So this language in the House bill has nothing to do with helping a special interest. That special interest was satisfied by a judge who said an entity was denied equal justice under the law because a bureaucrat was acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This amendment is not about a special interest. This amendment is about uniformity of law throughout the country because it is wrong--as the judge says--for a bureaucracy to have one sort of definition of when 60 days begins--whether it is after business hours, if something goes out, or, if something comes in, it includes the day it comes in. So we are talking about how we count 60 days, and it is about making sure there is a uniform standard for that based upon law passed by Congress and not upon one judge's decision that applies to one specific case. I would say, since this case has been decided, there are at least three other entities that have made application to the Patent Office to make sure they would get equal justice under the law in the same way the entity that got help through the initial decision of the judge. So this is not about special relief for one company. This is about what is a business day and having a uniform definition in the law of the United States of what a business day is, not based upon one district court decision that may not be applied uniformly around our Nation. So it is about uniformity and not about some bailout, as Senator Sessions says. It is not about some ferocious lobbying effort, as Senator Sessions has said. It is not just because one person was 1 hour late or 1 day late, because how do you know whether they are 1 hour late or 1 day late if there is a different definition under one circumstance of when 60 days starts and another definition under other circumstances of when a 60-day period tolls? Also, I would suggest to Senator Sessions that this is not Congress interfering in a court case that is under appeal because the government lost this case and the government is not appealing. Now, there might be some other entity appealing for their own interests to take advantage of something that is very unique to them. But just in case we have short memories, I would remind my colleagues that Congress does sometimes interject itself into the appeal process, and I would suggest one time we did that very recently, maybe 6 years ago--and that may not be very recent, but it is not as though we never do it--and that was the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act of 2005, when Congress interjected itself into an issue to protect gun manufacturers from pending lawsuits. It happens that 81 Senators supported that particular effort to interject ourselves into a lawsuit. So, Mr. President, in a more formal way, I want to repeat some of what I said this past summer when I came to the Senate floor and suggested to the House of Representatives that I would appreciate very much if they would put into the statutes of the United States a uniform definition of a business day and not leave it up to a court to maybe set that standard so that it might not be applied uniformly and, secondly, to make sure it was done in a way that was treating everybody the same, so everybody gets equal justice under the law, they know what the law is, and they don't have to rely upon maybe some court decision in one part of the country that maybe they can argue in another part of the country, and also to tell bureaucrats, as the judge said, that you can't act in an arbitrary and capricious way. But bureaucrats might act in an arbitrary and capricious way, in a way unknown to them, if we don't have a uniform definition of what a business day is. So I oppose the effort to strike section 37 from the patent reform bill for the reasons I have just given, but also for the reasons that were already expounded by the chairman of this committee that at this late date, after 6 years of trying to get a patent reform bill done-- and we haven't had a patent reform bill for over a decade, and it is badly needed--we shouldn't jeopardize the possible passage of this bill to the President of the United States for his signature by sending it back to the other body and perhaps putting it in jeopardy. But, most important, I think we ought to have a clear signal of what is a business day, a definition of it, and this legislation and section 37 makes that very clear. This past June, I addressed this issue in a floor statement, and I want to quote from that because I wanted my colleagues to understand why I hoped the House-passed bill would contain section 37 that was not in our Senate bill but that was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. Speaking as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee now and back in June when I spoke, I wanted the House Judiciary Committee to know that several Republican and Democratic Senators had asked me to support this provision as well. Section 37 resulted from a recent Federal court case that had as its genesis the difficulty the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration--and the Patent Office face when deciding how to calculate Hatch-Waxman deadlines. The Hatch-Waxman law of the 1980s was a compromise between drug patent holders and the generic manufacturers. Under the Waxman- Hatch law, once a patent holder obtains market approval, the patent holder has 60 days to request the Patent Office to restore the patent terms--time lost because of the FDA's long deliberating process eating up valuable patent rights. The citation to the case I am referring to is in 731 Federal Supplement 2nd, 470. The court found--and I want to quote more extensively than I did back in June. This is what the judge said about bureaucrats acting in an arbitrary and capricious way and when does the 60 days start. The Food and Drug Administration treats submissions to the FDA received after its normal business hours differently than it treats communications from the agency after normal business hours. Continuing to quote from the decision: The government does not deny that when notice of FDA approval is sent after normal business hours, the combination of the Patent and Trademark Office's calendar day interpretation and its new counting method effectively deprives applicants of a portion of the 60-day filing period that Congress expressly granted them . . . Under PTO's interpretation, the date stamped on the FDA approval letter starts the 60-day period for filing an application, even if the Food and Drug Administration never sends the letter . . . An applicant could lose a substantial portion, if not all, of its time for filing a Patent Trademark Extension application as a result of mistakes beyond its control . . . An interpretation that imposes such drastic consequences when the government errs could not be what Congress intended. So the judge is telling us in the Congress of the United States that because we weren't precise, there is a question as to when Congress intended 60 days to start to toll. And the question then is, If it is treated one way for one person and another way for another person, or if one agency treats it one way and another agency treats it another way, is that equal justice under the law? I think it is very clear that the judge said it was not. I say the judge was correct. Congress certainly should not expect nor allow mistakes by the bureaucracy to up-end the rights and provisions included in the Hatch-Waxman Act or any other piece of legislation we might pass. The court ruled that when the Food and Drug Administration sent a notice of approval after business hours, the 60-day period requesting patent restoration begins the next business day. It is as simple as that. The House, by including section 37, takes the court case, where common sense dictates to protect all patent holders against losing patent extensions as a result of confused counting calculations. Regrettably, misunderstandings about this provision have persisted, and I think you hear some of those misunderstandings in the statement by Senator Sessions. This provision does not apply to just one company. The truth is that it applies to all patent holders seeking to restore the patent term time lost during FDA deliberations--in other words, allowing what Hatch-Waxman tries to accomplish: justice for everybody. In recent weeks, it has been revealed that already three companies covering four drug patents will benefit by correcting the government's mistake. It does not cost the taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office determined that it is budget-neutral. Section 37 has been pointed out as maybe being anticonsumer, but it is anything but anticonsumer. I would quote Jim Martin, chairman of the 60-Plus Association. He said: We simply can't allow bureaucratic inconsistencies to stand in the way of cutting-edge medical research that is so important to the increasing number of Americans over the age of 60. This provision is a commonsense response to a problem that unnecessarily has ensnared far too many pharmaceutical companies and caused inexcusable delays in drug innovations. We have also heard from prominent doctors from throughout the United States. They wrote to us stating that section 67 ``is critically important to medicine and patients. In one case alone, the health and lives of millions of Americans who suffer from vascular disease are at stake . . . Lives are literally at stake. A vote against this provision will delay our patients access to cutting-edge discoveries and treatments. We urgently request your help in preserving section 37.'' So section 37 improves our patent system fairness through certainty and clarity, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to preserve this important provision as an end in itself, but also to make sure we do not send this bill back to the House of Representatives and instead get it to the President, particularly on a day like today when the President is going to be speaking to us tonight about jobs. I think having an updated patent law will help invention, innovation, research, and everything that adds value to what we do in America and preserve America's greatness in invention and the advancement of science. In conclusion, I would say it is very clear to me that the court concluded that the Patent and Trademark Office, and not some company or its lawyers, had erred, as is the implication here. A consistent interpretation ought to apply to all patent holders in all cases, and we need to resolve any uncertainty that persists despite the court's decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to oppose all three amendments to the patent bill so we can send this important jobs bill to the President of the United States for his signature. I then urge my colleagues to support final passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This is a strong bipartisan bill that will enhance America's innovation and give us economic growth. It will protect inventors' rights and improve transparency and third-party participation in the patent review process. It will strengthen patent quality and reduce costs and will curb litigation abuses and improve certainty for investors and innovators. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will also help small entities with their patent applications and provide for reduced fees for micro entities and small businesses. It will help companies do business more efficiently both here and abroad. The bill includes a provision that will prevent patents from being issued on claims of tax strategies. These strategies can add unwarranted fees on taxpayers for attempting to comply with the Tax Code. Finally, the bill will enhance the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office with administrative reforms, give the Patent and Trademark Office fee-setting authority which we hope will then lead to a reduction of backlog and improve the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to manage its affairs. I thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch, the lead sponsors of this legislation, for the tremendous amount of work they put into this America Invents Act, not only for this Congress but over the past 3 to 4 years that this bill has been worked on. This has been a long process spanning those several Congresses, and without the leadership of these two Senators on patent reform we wouldn't be ready to cross the finish line today. In addition, I thank the staff of the Judiciary Committee: Bruce Cohen, Aaron Cooper, Curtis LeGeyt of Chairman Leahy's staff, Matt Sandgren of Senator Hatch's staff, and Joe Matal of Senator Kyl's staff. I would like to thank the floor staff for their help in processing this bill in an efficient manner, and I would like to especially thank Kolan Davis and Rita Lari Jochum of my staff for their hard work on the bill. So for a third time I urge my colleagues to vote for the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and to oppose the three amendments we are going to be voting on so we can keep the bill clean and send it to the President without delay. Senator Leahy has made it very clear to all 100 Senators that, if we support this bill, it is a gamble to say it will be law if we have to move it beyond the Senate to the House. This bill will help American inventors create innovative new products and services and stimulate job creation. The bill will upgrade and strengthen our patent system and keep America competitive in an increasingly global economy. This is a good bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would urge my colleagues--because I rebut Senator Sessions' amendment--to keep in mind that when somebody tells us this is to bail out one company, understand that one company has gotten justice from the judicial branch of our government because a judge has said for that company that they were denied their rights under the 60- day rule to file for an extension of patent. So what that judge said was bureaucrats in our agencies acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not having the same rules that designate when the 60-day period of time starts. So we have a judge that says so, so maybe people can refer to that opinion and get what they want. But we ought to have it in the statute of what is uniform, and that is what the bill does, and the Sessions amendment would strike that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time do I have?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think the Senator from Alabama has given me a reason to suggest the importance of the language of the bill he wants to strike because he said that law ought to be equally applied. The law for this one company is that they were not given justice by bureaucrats who acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and they were denied their rights under the law. So that company is taken care of because there was an impartial judge who believed they had been abused in their rights under Hatch-Waxman to be able to extend their patent. You might be able to argue in other places around the country when you are likewise denied your right that you have this court case to back you up, but we cannot have one agency saying when a 60-day period of time starts for mail going in or mail going out to exercise your 60- day period, and for another agency to do it another way. That is basically what the judge said, that Congress surely could not have meant that. The language of this section 37 does exactly what Senator Sessions wants, which is to guarantee in the future that no bureaucrat can act in an arbitrary and capricious way when they decide when does the 60- day period of time start. We put it in the statute of the United States so the courts look at it and the bureaucrats look at it in exactly the same way. If you are a citizen of this country, you ought to know what your rights are. You ought to know that a bureaucrat treats you the same way they treat, in like situations, somebody else. You cannot have this sort of arbitrary and capricious action on the part of faceless bureaucrats that denies the rights. This puts it in statute and solidifies it so everybody knows what the law is, rather than relying upon one judge or in the future having to rely upon the court someplace else. I ask my colleagues not to support the Sessions amendment because it would deny equal rights to some people in this country, as this judge said those equal rights were already denied.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, our Nation will soon observe and reflect on the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. A decade after vicious terrorist attacks killed thousands of innocent people and caused immeasurable grief to victims and survivors, America has shown the world that 9/11 may have changed life as we knew it, but it has not changed America's commitment to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The national tragedy tapped an overwhelming sense of solidarity and sacrifice among Americans from across the country. Consider the selfless acts of courage and patriotism from the moment the hijackers commandeered three airplanes on that clear September morning 10 years ago: from the passengers aboard United flight 93, to the first responders who reported to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the heroes who serve on the front lines from within the Nation's military and from behind-the-scenes in our intelligence and counterterrorism operations. Thanks to the allegiance of public servants and private citizens, our men and women in uniform and our captains of commerce and industry, the United States of America continues to serve as a beacon of hope, freedom and opportunity to the rest of the world. Those who sought to undermine the exceptionalism of the American people underestimated the resiliency of the American people. Consider the recent protests across the globe, where after decades of oppression, the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have thrown out autocratic regimes in the pursuit of self-government, economic opportunity, higher standards of living and personal freedoms. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 offers Americans and our friends around the world the opportunity to embrace the common threads that tie us together. For more than two centuries, the United States has attracted millions of newcomers to live and work in the land of opportunity. Generations of Americans have scaled the ladder of economic and social mobility, enjoyed the freedoms of press, speech and religion, and embraced the ups and downs of entrepreneurship, risk-taking and innovation. Unleashing the power of the individual has served as a catalyst for economic growth and prosperity for the last 235 years. Along the way, the United States evolved as an economic, cultural and military leader in the world. The 9/11 terror attacks dealt a devastating blow to America and all of humanity. And yet, 10 years later, America still stands as the shining city on the hill. Despite the economic downturn, America still bears the promise of better days ahead. Despite high unemployment and unprecedented public debt, the American dream still serves as the magical elixir that ultimately defines the Nation's resiliency and bone-deep belief in the goodness of America. That bone-deep belief in the goodness of America flows through the veins of those called to serve their country in the U.S. military, including one of Iowa's own hometown heroes who lost his life in the line of duty this summer. Jon Tumilson enlisted in the Navy after graduating from high school in 1995. A 35-year-old Navy SEAL from Rockford, he was one of 30 Americans killed in one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces since 9/11. My wife and I were able to pay our respects to this fallen Navy SEAL at his funeral in August. The long- time Iowa Hawkeye football and wrestling fan left behind family members and loved ones, including his beloved Labrador retriever named Hawkeye. The black lab led family members into the school gymnasium for the service and proceeded to lie next to the casket of his owner. They say a picture is worth a 1,000 words. The image of Tumilson's dog lying next to the flag-draped casket brought three words to mind; loyalty, loss and love. I honor the memory of the many Iowans who've died in military service since 9/11, and all the soldiers and veterans who have served their country to protect U.S. national security and preserve our American way of life. May their sacrifice remind us of their bone-deep belief in America's goodness. We must keep their legacy and love of country close to mind as we work to put America back on the right track towards economic growth and prosperity. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This bipartisan legislation will make our patent system more effective and more efficient. It will enhance transparency and patent quality and improve certainty in the patent process. It will also enhance the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to cut its backlog and process patent applications in a more expeditious manner. Ultimately, this bill will help promote innovation and technological advancements and will provide a stimulus for American businesses and, obviously, will help generate new jobs. My colleagues will recall the Senate passed the bill we entitled the America Invents Act earlier this year by a margin of 95 to 5. The House bill is very similar to our Senate bill, so Senators should not have a problem supporting it. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act enjoys the widespread support of a large number of industries and other stakeholders from within the United States patent community. I am pleased to support the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed so we can get this bill done as soon as possible.