Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that Congress has agreed to put government funding decisions on autopilot for the first 6 months of fiscal year 2013 through another continuing resolution. This means, in effect, that a half year's worth of hearings, briefings, and drafting of a dozen appropriations bills will have been for naught. I recognize there are many factors at play this year as the clock ticks toward the end of a fiscal year and toward November. But continuing resolutions are no way to run a government, and the consequences for the American people's priorities, and for the agencies and the dedicated workers who implement our policies, will be dramatic. The world does not stand still, and time does not stand still. Circumstances that should be reflected in our budget decisions are changing all the time. Budgets are about choices. Budgets are about setting priorities. Doing this carefully and thoughtfully through hearings, through fact-finding and through negotiations among the people's representatives in Congress is not an easy process, but it was not meant to be easy. Setting the process on autopilot is anathema to making the right decisions for our country. As the veteran reporter David Rogers put it today in Politico: Continuing resolutions do only one thing well: `continue.' They don't allow for new starts and typically set funding at the current rate enjoyed by an agency--with no room for new ideas. In fact, it is worse than that. As chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee I am particularly mindful of changes that have occurred around the world in the past year. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa is one of many examples. Our posture in Iraq and Afghanistan is changing significantly. Humanitarian crises in Syria and South Sudan are far greater than anyone envisioned 1 year ago. At a time when the Chinese are ratcheting up their strategic investments across the globe to advance their national interests, the United States is stuck in neutral. I sympathize with the chairman and vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee and all the committee staff, who have worked hard to draft and report bipartisan bills. The State and Foreign Operations bill was reported on May 24 by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan vote. It has the strong support of Ranking Member Graham, who worked closely with me in drafting it, as well as minority leader Senator McConnell. With a day or so of floor time we could pass it and go to conference. That is the way it should be. Yet continuing resolutions are becoming increasingly common because they are a convenient and temptingly easy way to avoid hard decisions. Unfortunately, the American people lose, the country loses, and a great deal of time, effort and money are wasted.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will conclude debate on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 3414. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation. I commend President Obama for his commitment to addressing this national security issue. I also commend the majority leader and the bill's sponsors for their work on this pressing matter. I share the President's view that updates to our laws are urgently needed to keep pace with the many threats that Americans face in cyberspace. For that reason, I will support the motion for cloture on this bill. But, I do so with major reservations about the bill in its current form because this legislation does not address many of the key priories that must be a part of our national strategy for cybersecurity. A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of our debate about cyber security. Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyber space is a top priority of the Judiciary Committee. That is why I filed an amendment to the bill to strengthen our Nation's cyber crime laws, which takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. The amendment, among other things, updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity; strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure by making it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense or other critical infrastructure information; and streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This cyber crime amendment incorporates many of the proposals that were recommended in the cyber security proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported these proposals in September as part of my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. These updates to our criminal laws are urgently needed to keep pace with the cunning of cyber thieves and the many emerging threats to American's safety in cyber space. These measures must be included in any cyber security legislation the Senate considers. In the digital age, we must also update our digital privacy laws so that Americans will have better safeguards for their electronic communications. That is why I filed an amendment to the bill that makes commonsense updates to two vital digital privacy laws that I authored several years ago--the Video Privacy Protection Act, VPPA, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA. The amendment would update the Video Privacy Protection Act to permit consumers to provide a one- time consent for video service providers to share their video viewing information with third parties via the Internet. This update will help the VPPA keep pace with how most Americans view and share videos today--on the Internet--while also requiring that video service providers provide clear and conspicuous notice that the consent to share video viewing information can be withdrawn at anytime. The amendment also updates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to prohibit service providers from voluntarily disclosing the contents of Americans' e-mails or other electronic communications to the Government, unless the Government obtains a search warrant based on probable cause. There are appropriate exceptions to this prohibition under current law, including when a customer provides consent or when disclosure to law enforcement is necessary to address certain criminal activity. I am also mindful of the need to ensure that law enforcement can do their jobs effectively. The safeguards and exceptions in this provision were designed to ensure that appropriate privacy protections do not undermine the ability of law enforcement to keep us safe. I also filed a bipartisan amendment to promote cyber research and development in Vermont and elsewhere across the Nation. This amendment improves section 301 of the bill by clarifying that the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy's new test bed program should build upon existing work on cybersecurity test beds by the Department of Homeland Security in its Science and Technology Directorate. The amendment also expands the proposed test beds program to include funding for the military academies and senior military colleges to participate. Senator Hoeven joined me in proposing this improvement to the bill, and we both believe that it is important for these institutions, which have such a prominent role in cultivating the next generation of security leaders, to develop tools to combat the next generation's security threats. Comprehensive cyber security legislation must also respond to the alarming number of data security breaches that threaten the privacy and security of American consumers and businesses today. The troubling data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, and Lockheed are recent reminders that new tools are needed to protect us from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. In May 2011, the Obama administration submitted a data breach proposal that adopted the carefully balanced framework of data privacy and security legislation that I have introduced--and that this Judiciary Committee has favorably reported-- several times. My data breach amendment would establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification. My data security amendment would require that companies that maintain databases with Americans' sensitive personal information establish and implement data privacy and security programs, so that data breaches do not occur in the first place. I filed these amendments because Congress must address the threat of data security breaches and make these long overdue privacy protections available to American consumers and businesses. The threats to our privacy and security in cyber space are real, and these threats will not go away simply because the Congress fails to act. I lament the fact that a long-overdue debate on cybersecurity legislation has become embroiled in a partisan stalemate. While there are legitimate differences on how we must confront this threat, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike are put at risk if we do not do so. We must find a way to work together to confront this national challenge. I hope we will see more progress on overcoming differences on this issue in the weeks ahead. I also hope the sponsors of this bill will include the priorities I have outlined as part of any future comprehensive cyber security bill. Again, I commend the President and all Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked to address this important issue. I also thank the many privacy, civil liberties, and technology organizations that have supported my amendments to this bill. I ask that a copy of three letters I have received in support of several of my amendments to the bill be printed in the Record following my full remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that will help American businesses and inventors by reducing obstacles for obtaining patent protection overseas. This bipartisan measure implements two patent law treaties that were signed under President Clinton and submitted for the Senate's advice and consent by President George W. Bush. The Senate voted to ratify the treaties in 2007 without a single Senator in dissent. With this implementing legislation, Congress will complete its work so that the treaties at last can be ratified and go into effect. Our patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world. But in this global economy, it is not enough to have an effective domestic patent system; we must also help American inventors and businesses to protect their inventions and thrive in markets around the world. Consistent with last year's landmark patent reform legislation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, this legislation will benefit American inventors by implementing two measures to reduce application barriers around the world. The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs provides a simplified application system for U.S. creators of industrial designs who, by filing a single standardized application for a design patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, can apply for design protection in each country that has ratified the Treaty. American design patent applicants who previously had to file separate applications in numerous countries may now file a single, English-language application at the U.S. Patent Office, reducing the costs and burdens of obtaining international protections. The U.S. Patent Office may also receive applications that have been filed internationally, but its substantive examination process remains unchanged. The standard for obtaining a design patent is not affected. By simplifying the process for American businesses to obtain design patents overseas, the Hague Agreement will reduce barriers for small and mid-size companies to expand into foreign markets. The Patent Law Treaty also streamlines the process for American businesses seeking patent protection overseas. It limits the formalities different countries can require in patent applications, which are often used to disadvantage American applications in foreign jurisdictions. American businesses and inventors will benefit from harmonized applications, reducing the cost of doing business and encouraging U.S. innovators to protect and export their products internationally. In June, Director Kappos of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testified before the Judiciary Committee about the important need for this implementing legislation, stating that the treaties are ``pro- American innovation, pro-global innovation, pro-jobs, pro- opportunity.'' I agree. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this final step so that the treaties can at last be ratified, and American innovators and businesses can benefit from them as U.S. products continue to thrive on the global stage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that will help American businesses and inventors by reducing obstacles for obtaining patent protection overseas. This bipartisan measure implements two patent law treaties that were signed under President Clinton and submitted for the Senate's advice and consent by President George W. Bush. The Senate voted to ratify the treaties in 2007 without a single Senator in dissent. With this implementing legislation, Congress will complete its work so that the treaties at last can be ratified and go into effect. Our patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world. But in this global economy, it is not enough to have an effective domestic patent system; we must also help American inventors and businesses to protect their inventions and thrive in markets around the world. Consistent with last year's landmark patent reform legislation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, this legislation will benefit American inventors by implementing two measures to reduce application barriers around the world. The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs provides a simplified application system for U.S. creators of industrial designs who, by filing a single standardized application for a design patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, can apply for design protection in each country that has ratified the Treaty. American design patent applicants who previously had to file separate applications in numerous countries may now file a single, English-language application at the U.S. Patent Office, reducing the costs and burdens of obtaining international protections. The U.S. Patent Office may also receive applications that have been filed internationally, but its substantive examination process remains unchanged. The standard for obtaining a design patent is not affected. By simplifying the process for American businesses to obtain design patents overseas, the Hague Agreement will reduce barriers for small and mid-size companies to expand into foreign markets. The Patent Law Treaty also streamlines the process for American businesses seeking patent protection overseas. It limits the formalities different countries can require in patent applications, which are often used to disadvantage American applications in foreign jurisdictions. American businesses and inventors will benefit from harmonized applications, reducing the cost of doing business and encouraging U.S. innovators to protect and export their products internationally. In June, Director Kappos of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testified before the Judiciary Committee about the important need for this implementing legislation, stating that the treaties are ``pro- American innovation, pro-global innovation, pro-jobs, pro- opportunity.'' I agree. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this final step so that the treaties can at last be ratified, and American innovators and businesses can benefit from them as U.S. products continue to thrive on the global stage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate worked together to advance bipartisan legislation that Senator Grassley and I introduced, and I thank all Senators for their support. I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to pass this important legislation as it has been amended. I especially commend Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, Senator Conrad, and Senator Schumer for their collaboration. And I thank Senator Menendez for working with us to get this done in the Senate. This legislation contains extensions for four long-standing immigration programs for another 3 years. These programs, last authorized in the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations law, are set to expire on September 30, 2012. Today's actions are a step toward avoiding that result, and maintaining the progress and benefits that these programs provide to many American communities and constituencies. A program that I have long supported with Senators on both sides of aisle, the EB-5 Regional Center Program, has brought tens of thousands of jobs and billions in capital investment to communities across the United States at no cost to the taxpayer. This program represents one small corner of our overall immigration system, yet it results in enormous benefits for so many communities, including Vermont, where our Governors across administrations and business leaders have put it to use to make Vermont a better place for its citizens. The economic transformation we have seen in some Vermont communities as the direct result of this program is profound. Over the last several years, Vermonters who might have been out of work in a struggling economy found themselves working to build up Vermont companies, building Vermont products, and supporting economic activity in their communities. And so today, business leaders and entrepreneurs in Vermont, along with Vermont's Governor Peter Shumlin and his economic development team will continue to have this tool to help raise the capital Vermont needs to continue its innovation and economic growth. Job creation and capital investment in America is something I know we can all support, and today I am proud to say we have done just that. I want to give my thanks to the Association to Invest in the U.S.A., the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and all of the entrepreneurs and businesses large and small across the United States that have realized the economic benefits of this program and that have so strongly supported my efforts. The bill we pass today also continues programs important to Senator Hatch and Senator Conrad. Today we take a step toward carrying on Senator Conrad's program to encourage foreign doctors trained in the United States to practice medicine in medically underserved rural areas. And today we move to continue Senator Hatch's program to give United States religious institutions the ability to invite foreign citizens of shared faith to their communities to carry out good works and to help others. And this legislation reauthorizes the E-Verify work authorization program, which I know is very important to the Judiciary Committee's ranking member and other Senators. This program gives American employers a tool to ensure that those they hire are legally authorized to work in the United States. Yet it maintains its status as a voluntary program for employers, and maintains that choice for our businesses large and small to participate if they choose. I regret that it has been such a long road for us to get to this point today. These measures should be the easy ones. The politics of immigration continue to make our progress difficult not only on the broader measures that America needs, but on the smaller ones that Congress has supported for many years. So I am pleased the Senate has acted in support of all of these programs today. I would have liked to see these programs made permanent after the many years they have been in existence they should be. But I also understand that with permanence, the Senate should look at ways to improve them where possible so that they are more secure and more effective. I am prepared to do that. Though we take a small step forward today with these reauthorizations, I remain as committed today to tackle comprehensive immigration reform as I was when I supported President Bush in 2006 and 2007 in his efforts to make real change in our laws. I expect we will be there again soon and I look forward to the day we will once again begin the effort to strengthen and protect our entire immigration system.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, more than eight months ago, Senator Crapo and I, two Senators from very different parts of the country with very different political perspectives, joined together to introduce the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. We put aside our political differences, listened to the law enforcement and victim services professionals, and drafted a bill that put victims first. It has been more than 3 months since an overwhelming majority of the Senate joined us in our bipartisan effort to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 with 68 votes, more than two-thirds of this body, including every woman Senator, Republican and Democratic. In doing so, the Senate sent a very clear message. We said stopping domestic and sexual violence is a national priority, and we are going to stand together, Republicans and Democrats alike, to protect all victims from these devastating crimes--all victims. It was very clear. If you are a victim of domestic and sexual violence, we are passing laws to help protect you, no matter who you are or where you live in this country. Having sent such a strong bipartisan message from this body, I was--I don't know whether to say bewildered or shocked to see the House Republican leadership abandon the bipartisan approach that was so successful in the Senate. Instead of allowing a vote on the Senate- passed bipartisan bill that has the support of more than 1,000 national, state, and local victim service organizations, they insisted on crafting a new, partisan measure that intentionally stripped out protections for some of the most vulnerable victims and weakened existing protections for others. They refused to allow votes on amendments as we had done here in the Senate, choosing to stifle a full and honest debate about how to best meet the needs of victims. This overtly political approach was too much even for some in their own party. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, including the chair of the crime victims' caucus, stood up and voted against the inadequate and harmful House bill. That opposition was not surprising since a similar provision offered during the Senate debate was rejected by 61 Senators, including nine Republicans. The House Speaker's recent announcement naming as conferees only Republicans who supported that misguided and deeply partisan effort is hardly a step forward. Instead, I wish the Republican House leadership would do what it should have done four months ago--take up, debate, and vote on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. I have no doubt we could reauthorize this life-saving bill in short order if they would just allow their members a straightforward vote on the merits. Instead, Speaker Boehner continues to hide behind a procedural technicality, called a ``blue slip,'' as an excuse to avoid debating the bipartisan Senate bill. He acts as if he has no choice, but this is nonsense. The Speaker can waive the technicality and allow the House to vote on the Senate bill at any time. He is choosing to hold up this bill, and those efforts must stop. Since the Senate bill passed, I have been consistently calling for House action on the legislation. Earlier this summer, Senator Murkowski and I wrote a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner, urging him to allow an up-or-down vote. Two weeks ago, five House Republicans followed suit, calling on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to take up the Senate-passed bill to resolve the ``blue slip'' problem. And yesterday Republican Representatives Biggert and Dold again urged the House to work with the Senate to get this vital legislation signed into law. But if the Speaker and the Republican leadership in the House insist on ignoring victims and the voices of the professionals in the field, and those in their own party, and continue to delay this crucial legislation on a technicality, a technicality which has been waived over and over and over again since I have been in the Senate, I think the Senate should once again lead by example. We can solve this problem tonight--tonight, within the next few hours. If the Senate Republican leadership wants to get VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, done, it can be done. We could take up a House revenue bill, substitute the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, and send it to the House immediately. To those who are watching and listening, this may sound like, what are these legislative moves? What they are is a simple thing I have seen done hundreds of times since I have been here. It would be our way of saying we want to stop violence against women. We have passed a bill that had Republicans and Democrats come together across the political spectrum. Now we are sending it to the other body, saying follow our example. Majority Leader Reid proposed this path forward nearly 2 months ago, but he was blocked by the Republican side. There is no good reason for their objection. Just this year, Republican Senators unanimously agreed to a similar procedure in order to overcome blue slip issues with both the transportation bill and the FAA reauthorization bill. Let's be clear about this--with just a little cooperation from Senate Republicans, we can move VAWA now. What I am saying is that just as 68 of us, Republicans and Democrats, came together before to pass this bill, I would urge the Republican leadership to join us and stop blocking it from moving forward. We have only a precious few days left in this Congress to get this bill passed. The procedural excuses must stop. Partisan politicking must end, just as Senator Crapo and I, two Senators of different political philosophies, came together when we started this process so many months ago, we came together to focus on the victims but also to make good on our promise to stop domestic and sexual violence in all its forms against all victims. I have said so many times on this floor, this matter is deeply personal. I went to a lot of these crime scenes as a young prosecutor, a young prosecutor with a young family. I would see a victim of violence, sometimes a bloodied and barely conscious victim being taken in an ambulance to the hospital--but sometimes seeing a bloody corpse on the floor and then we would find out, as we unraveled the case, that we could have intervened and stopped this death if we had only had the tools. Well, now those early detection and intervention tools exist and we can stop this violence. Those tools, critical resources to reduce domestic violence homicide, are in the Senate-passed VAWA bill but they will not become law unless we act to pass this legislation now. What I also learned is that the police officers who came to help investigate and help get the perpetrator, they never asked: Was this victim a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, white or black, gay or straight, Native American or immigrant. They just said, as I have said so many times on the floor and the distinguished Presiding Officer, who herself was a prosecutor, has said: A victim is a victim is a victim. I do not want to just be able to arrest people after the victim is dead. I want programs to stop the person from being abused in the first place. I want to protect victims before they become victims. If there is anything in this country that should unite all of us, it should be this, just as it united us before. Let's send it on to the other body. Let's get it passed. Let's get it on the President's desk, and let's hope we save the lives of people. Helping these victims--no matter who they are--must be our goal. Their lives depend on it, and they are waiting on us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jasper Craven of my staff be given the privileges of the floor for the rest of today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeanette Quick, a detailee on the Banking Committee staff, as well as Ingianni Acosta and Georgina Cannan, two interns on Senator Johnson's staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad we can continue this partnership today. Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to bring forth false claims. I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad we can continue this partnership today. Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to bring forth false claims. I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak very briefly about recent events in El Salvador which is in the midst of a constitutional and political crisis involving the composition and power of the Supreme Court. Essentially what happened is that in June the Supreme Court ruled that the National Assembly had abused its power by naming justices to the court on two separate occasions, and ordered a new judicial selection process with which the National Assembly then refused to comply. A majority of the deputies took the extraordinary step of appealing the Supreme Court's decision to the Central American Court of Justice, and a final ruling is expected in a matter of days. Last week, Congressman Jim McGovern, who is probably more knowledgeable about El Salvador than anyone else in Congress, and I commented on the situation. We said: We are encouraged by the commitment by President Funes and representatives of El Salvador's political parties to resolve this crisis expeditiously. We agree with the Department of State that this is a matter to be resolved by Salvadorans through dialogue, and we reaffirm our support for U.S. assistance for El Salvador which addresses a range of mutual interests, from improving law enforcement to combating poverty. Over the past 30 years, El Salvador has faced many challenges, from civil war, to corruption, to cyclones. This constitutional political crisis is the latest test of whether the country's governmental institutions can emerge stronger, the rule of law strengthened, and its people more united. Since then, there has been further progress towards a resolution of this crisis. As a former prosecutor, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations that funds international aid programs, I can think of few things as important to any society as an independent judiciary. Like free and fair elections, it is a cornerstone of democratic government. Sometimes I agree with the decisions of our Supreme Court and sometimes I disagree. But we comply with its decisions because we know the alternative is chaos and the erosion of the checks and balances that protect our 226 year old democracy. I suspect the people of El Salvador feel similarly, and I am hopeful that however their representatives resolve this matter the independence of the Salvadoran judiciary will be preserved and strengthened.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Last week, the Judiciary Committee considered S.3276, a bill reauthorizing the surveillance provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is set to expire at the end of this year. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have both stated that reauthorization of these important national security authorities is the ``top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.'' After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported its reauthorization bill, I asked for a sequential referral. Senator Grassley joined me in that request. It was for a limited time and had we not completed our markup last Thursday, time might well have expired for this committee to act on it. I was surprised last week and since to be criticized for seeking to improve the bill within its four corners. I thought that was why we sought the sequential referral, in order to consider and improve the bill where we could. I worked with Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. We came to an understanding and she supported the substitute amendment I offered to shorten the sunset and add more accountability and oversight protections. I thank her for that. I am always willing to work with the Senator from California, who is so diligent in her efforts on the Intelligence Committee. We reached a good compromise and agreement. I had circulated the core of my amendment, to shorten the sunset, back on July 11, before the bill was to be considered. At the request of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, the bill was held over. I protected their right to do so under our rules. We finally proceeded to the bill last Thursday, July 19. Despite the delay, no Republicans spoke to me about any potential amendments to the bill. Instead, the evening before the delayed markup, for the first time, Republican offices circulated scores of amendments. It is unfortunate that there have been mischaracterizations of our committee process. Contrary to the statements of some on the other side, no one was precluded from offering an amendment. In fact, a number were offered by Republican Senators. The committee proceeded to vote on Senator Kyl's amendment, for example, to create a new material support of terrorism offense in title 18, and rejected it after Senator Feinstein argued against including it on this important measure, despite her support for the substance of the amendment. We proceeded to vote on Senator Lee's amendment, which was about FISA surveillance, and it, too, was defeated. So despite the misstatements to the contrary, the committee proceeded to consider and reject amendments. There came a point during our initial 2-hour markup when Senator Feinstein urged that amendments about matters not involving the FISA Amendments Act extension be considered on other vehicles at other times, and moved to table amendments. Those motions prevailed. We have had such motions before and sometimes they succeed. After 2 hours, as Republican Senators left, we lost a quorum and had to reconvene to vote on reporting the bill as amended to the Senate. I thank those Senators from both sides of the aisle who reconvened. The committee voted to report the measure and was able to do so within the short timeframe of our sequential referral. The FISA Amendments Act legislation is a top priority of the administration and our intelligence community. We have all acknowledged that. The ranking member acknowledged that it is ``a program vital to our national security.'' A number of Republicans proclaimed last week that they were ready to expedite consideration of the measure and would not offer amendments. Then, when the committee adopted the June 2015 sunset date instead of one of the 2017 dates in other versions of the bill, they changed position and sought to use it as a vehicle for extraneous matters and to offer a number of riders to it that were rejected. I do not understand that logic and why the change in the sunset date or the addition of oversight provisions should change the character of the bill or its importance to our national security. The bill is needed to continue the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons overseas under certain procedures approved by the FISA Court. The Justice Department and DNI have told us: [It] is vital in keeping the Nation safe. It provides information about the plans and identities of terrorists, allowing us to glimpse inside terrorist organizations and obtain information about how those groups function and receive support. In addition, it lets us collect information about the intentions and capabilities of weapons proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten the United States. Failure to reauthorize Section 702 would result in a loss of significant intelligence and impede the ability of the intelligence community to respond quickly to new threats and intelligence opportunities. The committee agreed with Senator Feinstein when she asked us not to open the bill up to ``extraneous amendments.'' As it was, the committee considered half a dozen amendments offered by Republican Senators. I appreciated Senator Kyl volunteering to have his staff convene a meeting to consider amendments to our terrorist statutes that he does not think will be controversial. Notably, the vast majority of the amendments filed and offered by the Republicans would not have changed or added a single word to either the underlying bill or the underlying statute. Senator Lee's amendment was the only Republican amendment that dealt in any way with the relevant FISA authorities. That amendment received an up-or-down vote by the committee, and most Republican members voted against it. Once it became clear that the Republican Senators intended to offer a series of extraneous amendments, Senator Feinstein moved to table amendments that were not germane to her bill. She has that right. I protect the rights of all members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats. Four such amendments were tabled, but notably they were tabled by a vote of the full committee, not simply through a ruling by the chairman or my making up rules, as Republican chairmen have done in the past. Indeed, although a motion to table is typically not subject to debate, I asked the committee's indulgence to permit such discussion. No Senator was cut off from offering amendments or engaging in debate. It is telling that the two amendments that Senator Grassley offered during the committee's consideration of the FISA Amendments Act had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the provisions of title VII of FISA. The first amendment that Senator Grassley offered would have added the death penalty as a punishment to certain crimes involving weapons of mass destruction. The second amendment that he offered would have required a Department of Justice Inspector General audit of criminal wiretap applications from 2009 to 2010. This amendment may be important to Senator Grassley in the context of the Fast and Furious controversy, but it certainly is not relevant to the FISA Amendments Act. Senator Feinstein moved to table both amendments and the motion carried each time. Let us be accurate, Republican members of the committee were afforded the opportunity to offer amendments, even ones outside the scope of the legislation. The committee has a process, and we followed that process. I understand that Republican Senators are disappointed that they were not able to use the FISA Amendments Act legislation as a vehicle to carry other legislation. I am disappointed that, as with so many good bills the committee has reported, there was so little Republican support for a measure that everyone concedes is vital to our national security. Like the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which received no Republican vote on this committee; and the Second Chance Act, which received no Republican votes on this committee after a number of Republican amendments were considered and even though it had been a program strongly supported by Republicans historically; the FISA Amendments Act Sunsets Extension Act was not supported by a single Republican Senator on this committee. Let me remind Senators, again, that the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have emphasized that the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act is the intelligence community's ``top legislative priority.'' I encourage any Senator who has not yet done so to review the classified information that the administration has provided to Congress about the implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. This is a measure that requires serious debate and swift action not partisan bickering or baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that we can set aside the election year posturing and press ahead with consideration of this important national security measure. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are soon going to be voting on other matters, and I see the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who wishes to speak, so I will not take long. However, there is one area I don't want people to forget about; that is, the Violence Against Women Act. Eight months ago Senator Crapo and I joined together to introduce the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. We decided to put victims first, not politics first. So we set aside any partisan differences the two of us might have. We did this so we could tell the Senate that even though we come from entirely different political philosophies, we are united on the need to protect victims. At a time when we hear people say this body is deeply divided, an overwhelming majority of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, joined us in that effort, and we passed this commonsense legislation with a remarkable 68 votes. That is a rare feat in the Senate today and it sent a clear message--stopping domestic and sexual violence. There are some who say we couldn't get 51 votes to say the Sun rises in the east. We got 68 votes to protect victims. We sent a clear message that stopping domestic violence is a priority and we will stand together to protect all victims from these devastating crimes. Most of us here hoped the House Republicans would follow our demonstration of bipartisanship. We gave them an excellent bill and a chance to quickly take it up and pass it. Instead, unfortunately, they put politics first. They drafted a new bill, and they are within their right to do that, but here is what they did. They intentionally stripped out protections for some of the most vulnerable victims, including immigrants, LGBT victims, and Native women. They took out the key provisions to make campuses and public housing safer. They rejected the input of law enforcement and victims' services professionals who tell us these protections are desperately needed to save lives. In other words, they said: If you have two victims who are subjected to the same kind of abuse, we might protect this one, but by law we won't protect this one. I can tell my colleagues that there is no one in law enforcement in this country, no matter what their political background, who wants to be put in that position. They believe that a victim is a victim is a victim, and they want to protect all of them. In fact, it was so obvious that the acts of some of these House Republicans were too much even for some of their own party. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, including the chair of the crime victims caucus, stood up and voted against this restrictive House bill. We can talk about numbers and all of those things, but I wish those who came up with this restrictive House bill could have been with me last Thursday to hear from Laura Dunn, a courageous survivor of campus sexual assault who told us of her own horrendous experience. She said: I come before you to tell you about this because I want you to include the Senate provisions the House stripped out. She made an impassioned plea for that and for Congress to do all it can to protect all students on campus from the kind of unspeakable violence she encountered--the kind of violence that I pray my daughter and my granddaughters will never have to face. More than 200 survivors of campus violence at 176 colleges and universities came forward publicly and joined her in an open letter to Congress calling for the immediate passage of this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Now the House Republican leadership is hiding behind a procedural technicality as an excuse to avoid debate on the Senate bill. That is nonsense. We all know the Speaker of the House could waive the technicality, called a blue slip and allow the House to have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate bill at any time. He could do it this afternoon. I have been consistently calling for House action on this legislation since we passed it overwhelmingly 3 months ago. In fact, last month Senator Murkowski and I wrote a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner. We asked him to allow an up-or-down vote. Last Thursday five House Republicans followed suit. They called on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to take up the Senate-passed bill and resolve the blue slip problem. The Speaker's hands are not tied in this matter. He has to stop choosing to hold up the bill and instead choose to let these efforts to pass the bill go forward. A New York Times editorial earlier this week entitled ``Delay on Domestic Violence'' put it well: Mr. Boehner's leadership could break the logjam--but that, of course, would also require his Republican colleagues to drop their . . . opposition to stronger protections for all victims of abuse. I ask unanimous consent that both letters and the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, victims shouldn't be forced to wait any longer. The problems and barriers facing victims of domestic and sexual violence are too serious for Congress to delay. I think of my home State of Vermont and the very small State that it is, but more than 50 percent of homicides are related to domestic violence--50 percent. That is simply unacceptable. We know how to identify these cases early. We know how to intervene. We know how to stop these needless deaths. The Senate-passed bill includes important new tools for law enforcement in communities all over Vermont and every other State to do just that. But until the House Republican leadership stops playing games, those resources will not reach the people who need them now and lives will be lost. Enough is enough. Let's stop this fiction of saying we will stand together to protect this victim but not this other victim, as though somebody who has been victimized, somebody who has faced this violence should be treated differently. It is time to put aside the politics. We need to stop picking and choosing which victims of abuse get help and which are ignored. We will not find a single police officer who has gone to a scene of domestic violence or abuse who will tell us: Well, I don't want to catch the person who did this, but the person who did this, we will go after them. No. Police officers want to protect us all. That is what the Leahy-Crapo bill does. This is to protect us all. So I hope the House will take up and vote on the bipartisan Senate bill because our bill protects all victims. Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republicans and Democrats and Independents. They are rich and poor. They are gay and straight. They are immigrant and citizen alike. A victim is a victim. Helping these victims, all these victims--whether they are from Vermont, California, Alaska, Iowa, Oregon, Florida, or anywhere else--that has to be our goal because their lives depend upon it. Mr. President, we live a privileged life in this Senate, just as the House Members do. They are not facing this kind of abuse. But the lives of millions of Americans do face it. Their lives are depending upon us not to play partisan games but to give law enforcement and all the various organizations that help prevent abuse the tools they need. We have done that in the Senate. It is time for the House to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank, of course, the majority leader and the Republican leader, friends with whom I have served for years--and we have always been friends--for their kind words. I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, another dear friend. Our careers have paralleled in many areas--from the time he was the mayor of our largest city, to being our lone Representative in the House of Representatives, to now being my partner here in the Senate. Of course, as to my dear friend Dick Lugar, we have worked together so many times. We alternated between being the chair and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He did a great deal on the environment, passed an organic farm bill, did so many things, all the time when he was doing his invaluable work to protect our Nation against nuclear weapons. Mr. President, I value the Senate. I love the Senate. It has been a major part of my life. But I was glad to hear both leaders mention the true love of my life, my wife of nearly 50 years. There is nothing I have accomplished throughout my whole public career that I could have done without Marcelle's help. Not only has she raised three wonderful children and is helping to raise five wonderful grandchildren, every single day I have been a better person because of her. When we first started the race for the Senate in 1974, few people said I could win. Marcelle and I campaigned together. She always said I could. And we did. None of us know how long we might be in the Senate, but I have valued every single moment here, and I will value every single moment as long as I am here. I am glad Marcelle is here. She is joined by my dear and valuable friend Peter Welch, our Congressman from Vermont, and his wife Margaret, but also so many members of my staff. I feel that I have been blessed with the finest staff any Senator has ever had. Again, they are the ones every day who, if I look good and do something well on this floor, I give the credit. I joke that I am a constitutional impediment to them totally running everything. But thank goodness they are there. I will speak more about this at another time. But it is a special feeling to be here with my friend Dick Lugar, to hear the kinds words of my friend and colleague Bernie Sanders, to know that the other Member of our delegation--we are a huge delegation; all three Members--Peter Welch is here. But especially I acknowledge Marcelle and Kevin, Alicia, and Mark, and their families. How wonderful it is to be here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont boasts many talented artists, creators, composers and authors. Not least among them is Chris Bohjalian of Lincoln, an accomplished writer whose recent novel, The Sandcastle Girls, is drawing the praise and accolades of critics and readers alike. Marcelle and I were inspired by the story Chris has committed to the printed page; it is a novel that I believe will secure his place among the most accomplished writers of the 21st Century. I read with interest an interview with Chris published in Vermont's Burlington Free Press on July 15. Like many artists and authors, Chris drew from his own heritage in his case, Armenian--to pen a moving story of compaslion and perseverance amid horror and tragedy. Perhaps this is why he has called The Sandcastle Girls the ``most important book'' he will ever write. Chris is a longtime friend, and I have always enjoyed reading his works. The Sandcastle Girls is an achievement that stands apart and will deeply affect its readers. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article, ``The Most Important Book I Will Ever Write.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection. In fact, I will give a courtesy to the Senator from Iowa that he did not give to me, and I will be happy to yield 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Usually, Mr. President, it has been my experience that in 37 years in this Senate, as the second most senior Member here, if a Senator wants to come and attack another Senator, they have the courtesy of giving him notice before they do. I am sorry my friend from Iowa didn't follow the normal courtesy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to no Member of this body in the fact that I uphold not only the rules but the courtesies of this Senate. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have never cut off a Member of the other party who wished to speak, unlike some of the procedures they followed when they held the chair. I have never refused to have a Member of the other party bring up an amendment, contrary to the procedures they followed when they chaired it. I believe in the Senate. I believe in the rules of the Senate, but especially I believe in the comity that Thomas Jefferson believed in, in this body; otherwise, the Senate would fall apart. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. As both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee during the last several years, I have worked with Senate Republicans to consider judicial nominees well into presidential election years, I have made earnest efforts to make the confirmation process more transparent and fair, I have ensured that the President consults with home state Senators before submitting a nominee, and I have opened up the blue slip process to prevent abuses while continuing to respect it. In the last two presidential election years, we were able to bring the number of judicial vacancies down to the lowest levels in the past 20 years. In 2004 at end of President Bush's first term, vacancies were reduced to 28 not the 77 we have today. In 2008, in the last year of President Bush's second term, we again worked to fill vacancies and got them down to 34, less than half of what they are today. In 2004, 25 nominees were confirmed between June and the presidential election, and in 2008, 22 nominees were confirmed between June and the presidential election. In 2004, a Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed five circuit court nominees of a Republican President that had been reported by the Committee that year. This year we have confirmed only two circuit court nominees that have been reported by the Committee this year, and both were filibustered. By this date in 2004 the Senate had already confirmed 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees, and we confirmed another three that year for a total of 35 circuit court nominees in his first term. So far, the Senate has only been allowed to consider and confirm 30 of President Obama's circuit court nominees five fewer, 17 percent fewer while higher numbers of vacancies remain, and yet the Senate Republican leadership wants to artificially shut down nominations for no good reason. As Chairman of this Committee, I have also assiduously protected the rights of the minority in the judicial nomination process. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home state Senators. That has meant that we are not able to proceed on current nominees from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Louisiana. I even stopped proceedings on a circuit court nominee from Kansas when the Kansas Republican Senators reversed themselves and withdrew their support for the nominee. Nor did I accede to the Majority Leader's request to push a Nevada nominee through Committee who did not have the blue slip of the state's Republican Senator. In stark contrast, it was Senate Republicans and the Republican chairman who blatantly disregarded Senate Judiciary procedure by proceeding with nominations despite the objection of both home state Senators. And I have been consistent. I hold hearings at the same pace and under the same procedures whether the President nominating is a Democrat or a Republican. Others cannot say that. So those have been my rules respect for minority rights, transparency, deference to home state Senators, consistent application of policies and practices, and allowing for confirmations well into presidential election years for nominees with bipartisan support. Personal attacks on me do nothing to help the American people who are seeking justice in our Federal courts. I am willing to defend my record but that is beside the point. The harm to the American people is what matters. What the American people and the overburdened Federal courts need are qualified judges to administer justice in our Federal courts, not the perpetuation of extended, numerous vacancies. The judicial vacancy rate remains almost twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. I wish Senate Republicans would think more about our responsibilities to the American people than some warped sense of partisan score settling. Vacancies have been near or above 80 for three years. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal courts is currently vacant. Their shutting down confirmations for consensus and qualified judicial nominees is not helping the overburdened courts who cannot administer justice in an expedient fashion. It is not helping owners of small businesses. Last week, after his nomination was reported with near unanimous voice vote by the Judiciary Committee approximately three months ago, the Senate was finally able to confirm Judge Kevin McNulty to the District of New Jersey. Despite vacancies still remaining near or above 80, Senate Republicans continue to obstruct and stall nominees on the Senate floor for no good reason. We could easily have confirmed both Judges Shipp and McNulty together three months ago. It is this type of across-the-board obstruction of judicial nominees by Senate Republicans that has contributed to the judicial vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. Last week, I spoke about the novel excuses that some Senate Republicans have concocted for refusing to allow for votes on nominees. One excuse was that having confirmed two Supreme Court justices, the Senate cannot be expected to reach the 205 number of confirmations in President Bush's first term. Work on two Supreme Court nominations did not stop the Senate from working to confirm 200 of President Clinton's circuit and district nominees in his first term. Similarly, there were two Supreme Court confirmations in President George H.W. Bush's term, and that did not prevent Senate Democrats who were in the Senate majority from confirming 192 of his circuit and district nominees, including 66 in the election year of 1992 alone. Last week we heard another self-serving misconception of more recent history from the Republican side of the aisle. They claimed that Democrats were responsible for growing judicial vacancies in 2008. The charge was as follows: ``[A]t the beginning of 2008 there were 43 vacancies. So the practice for Democrats who controlled the Senate during that last year of President Bush's term was to allow vacancies to increase by more than 37 percent.'' In fact, what we did in 2008 was to reduce vacancies back down to 34 in October 2008 when the Senate recessed for the year. The increase in vacancies after October and through the remainder of 2008 was not because Senate Democrats were obstructing Senate votes on qualified judicial nominees with bipartisan support as Senate Republicans are today. In November and December 2008 the Senate met on a few days only to address the financial crisis. There were no nominations pending on the Calendar after the election in 2008. Their charge is fallacious. Judicial vacancies have not been as low as 34 or 43 or even the 55 that they stood at when President Obama took office for years. Due to Republican obstruction, President Obama will be the first President in 20 years to complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than when he took office. Last week Senate Republicans also contended that they have no responsibility for the lack of progress in 2009. In fact, that year ended with 10 judicial confirmations stalled by Senate Republicans. The obstructionist tactics they employed from the outset of the Obama administration had led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed that whole year. The 12 were less than half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. In the second half of 2001, a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to confirm 28 judges. Despite the fact that President Obama began nominating judicial nominees two months earlier than President Bush, Senate Republicans delayed and obstructed them to yield an historic low in confirmations. Republicans refused to agree to the consideration of qualified, noncontroversial nominees for weeks and months. And as the Senate recessed in December, only three of the available 13 judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar were allowed to be considered. By contrast, in December 2001, the first year of President Bush's administration, Senate Democrats proceeded to confirm 10 of his judicial nominees. At the end of the Senate's 2001 session, only four judicial nominations were left on the Senate Executive Calendar, all of which were confirmed soon after the Senate returned in 2002. By contrast, it took until May 2011, a year and a half later, to complete action on the judicial nominees who should have been confirmed in December 2009 but had to be renominated. Although noncontroversial, several were further delayed by filibusters before being confirmed unanimously. The lack of Senate action on those 10 judicial nominees in 2009 was attributable to Senate Republicans and no one else. Despite the fact that President Obama reached across the aisle to consult with Republican Senators, he was rewarded with obstruction from the outset of his administration. While President Obama moved beyond the judicial nominations battles of the past and reached out to work with Republicans and make mainstream nominations, Senate Republicans continued their tactics of delay. For Senate Republicans to claim that ``only 13 [sic] judges were confirmed during President Obama's first year'' because of ``decisions made by the Senate Democratic leadership'' and that it was ``the choice of Democrats'' and ``not because of anything the Republican minority could do'' is ludicrous. Senate Democrats had cleared for confirmation the other 10 judicial nominees stalled by Republicans in 2009. Their assertion ignores the facts and the truth. Just as they cannot escape responsibility for their unwillingness to move forward with the 21 judicial nominees ready for a final up-or down vote now before the end of this year, they cannot escape responsibility for what they did in 2009. Senate Republicans choose to offer weak excuses and blame everyone but themselves for the delays and obstruction in which they have excelled. Their sense of being justified by some view of tit-for-tat is distorted and should be beside the point while vacancies remain so high that the American people and our courts are overburdened. The way Senate Democrats helped reduce vacancies was not by limiting confirmations to one nominee per week, as Senate Republicans have. In September 2008, with Democrats in the majority, the Senate confirmed 10 of President Bush's nominees in a single day, all by voice vote. There were 10 consensus nominees pending on the Senate floor, and we confirmed all of them in minutes. Likewise, in 2002, Senate Democrats joined in confirming 18 of President Bush's nominees in a single day, again by voice vote. I wish Senate Republicans would duplicate that precedent and help clear the logjam of judicial nominees dating back to March who are still awaiting up-or-down votes. While I am pleased that we will confirm Judge Shipp today, I wish that Senate Republicans would help us confirm the 20 additional judicial nominees who can be confirmed right now. Then we could make real progress in giving our courts the judges they need to provide justice for the American people, just as we did in 1992, 2004 and 2008. After today's vote, I hope Senate Republicans will reconsider their ill-conceived partisan strategy and work with us to meet the needs of the American people. With more than 75 judicial vacancies still burdening the American people and our Federal courts, there is no justification for not proceeding to confirm the judicial nominees reported with bipartisan support by the Judiciary Committee this year. Each day that Senate Republicans refuse because of their political agenda to confirm these qualified judicial nominees who have been reviewed and voted on by the Judiciary Committee is another day that a judge could have been working to administer justice. Every week lost is another in which injured plaintiffs are having to wait to recover the costs of medical expenses, lost wages, or other damages from wrongdoing. Every month is another drag on the economy as small business owners have to wait to have their contract disputes resolved. Hardworking and hard-pressed Americans should not have to wait years to have their cases decided. Just as it is with the economy and with jobs, the American people do not want to hear excuses about why Republicans in Congress will not help them. So let us do more to help the American people. Exhibit 1 [From theatlantic.com, July 16, 2012] William Kayatta and the Needless Destruction of the Thurmond Rule (By Andrew Cohen) Why do Republican leaders still play along with an informal Senate rule that prevents up-or-down votes on even those judges who have strong Republican support? Meet William Kayatta, another one of America's earnest, capable judges-in-waiting. Widely respected in his home state of Maine, nominated by President Obama in January to fill a vacancy on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, eagerly endorsed by both of Maine's Republican senators, passed for confirmation to the Senate floor by an easy voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kayatta's nomination instead has become yet another victim of the Senate GOP's suicidal tendencies. The litigants of the 1st Circuit need Kayatta. There are no serious arguments against him. Yet the Republican leadership in the Senate has blocked a vote on the merits of his nomination in obedience to the so-called ``Thurmond Rule,'' an informal practice as self-destructive as was its namesake. The Thurmond Rule is typically invoked by the opposition party in a presidential election year to preclude substantive votes on federal judicial appointments within six months of Election Day. It is the Senate's version of a sit-down strike. In April, just after the Judiciary Committee favorably passed along Kayatta's nomination to the Senate floor for confirmation, Maine's junior senator, Susan Collins, had wonderful things to say about the nominee: Bill is an attorney of exceptional intelligence, extensive experience, and demonstrated integrity, who is very highly respected in the Maine legal community. Bill's impressive background makes him eminently qualified for a seat on the First Circuit. His thirty-plus years of real world litigation experience would bring a much-needed perspective to the court. Maine has a long proud history of supplying superb jurists to the federal bench. I know that, if confirmed, Mr. Kayatta will continue in that tradition. I urge the full Senate to approve his nomination as soon as possible. And how did her fellow Republicans respond to her request? They blew her off. There has been no vote on Kayatta's nomination and none is scheduled. Instead, last month, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, invoked the ``Thurmond rule'' to block floor consideration of appointment--as well as up-or-down votes on the rest of President Obama's federal appellate nominees (This in turn, initially prompted Sen. Collins to blame the Obama Administration for going too slow in nominating Kayatta in the first place.) In theory, the Thurmond Rule is something official Washington defends as the price of divided government. In reality, it's another outrageous example of how the Senate has re-written the Constitution by filibuster. In practice, in the Kayatta case and many more, the Thurmond rule is the antithesis of good governance. Your Senate today perpetuates a frivolous rule which, for the most cynical political reasons, blocks qualified people from serving their nation. It's not misfeasance. It's malfeasance. Just because Strom Thurmond was willing to jump the Senate off the bridge doesn't mean that today's Senate Republican leaders had to do likewise. In a more prudent and practical era in Senate history, nominees like Kayatta would have been confirmed in days. Fifty years ago, for example, when another bright Democratic appointee with strong Republican support came to the Senate seeking a judgeship, the Judiciary Committee took all of 11 minutes before it endorsed him. Byron ``Whizzer'' White then served the next 31 years as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. That's wholly unthinkable today--even with lower federal court nominees. Now even slam-dunk candidates like Kayatta linger in the wings waiting for Senate ``consent'' long after the body already has definitively ``advised'' the executive branch of how great it thinks the nominee would be as a judge. Can you imagine the uproar if the Senate ever used its filibuster power to block the deployment of troops already endorsed by the Armed Services Committee? Now please tell me the material difference here. Surely, the judiciary needs judges as much as the army needs soldiers. There are currently 76 judicial vacancies around the country. There are 31 districts and circuits designated as ``judicial emergencies'' because vacancies there have lingered so long. In the 10th Circuit, what's happening to Kayatta is happening to Robert Bacharach, who has the support of Oklahoma's two Republican senators. The Senate also is blocking Richard Taranto from a Federal Circuit spot even though he breezed through the Judiciary Committee and has been endorsed by Robert Bork and Paul Clement. The same goes for Patty Shwartz in the 3rd Circuit. This is unacceptable on every level. When we talk about ``false equivalence'' in modern politics the business of these judges should be the lede. These nominations require no great policy choices on the part of Congress. They don't come with thousands of pages of ambiguous legalese disguised as the language of a federal statute. There is no room for spin. These nominees are either qualified, or they aren't, and when they sail out of the Judiciary Committee with voice votes no one can plausibly say they aren't qualified. And yet here we are. It would be convenient to blame Strom Thurmond, one of the most divisive politicians of the 20th century, for one of the Senate's most divisive rules. But Thurmond is long gone. And there was never anything about his rule that demanded it be followed, session after session, under both Democratic and Republican control. Just because Strom Thurmond was willing to jump the Senate off the bridge, in other words, doesn't mean that today's Senate Republican leaders had to do likewise. But they have. America has trouble enough today without a senseless Senate rule that blocks highly skilled, highly competent public servants from joining government. The nation's litigants in federal court, burdened by judicial vacancies, already are waiting long enough to have their corporate disputes decided. This isn't gridlock. This is destruction. ``I think it's stupid'' to block good judges from confirmation, Sen. Tom Coburn said earlier this year. For once, he is right. And Sen. Collins? Even she's come around. ``I have urged my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give Bill the direct vote by the full Senate that he deserves,'' she said late last month. Amen to that.