Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand I have time remaining?

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, let me refer to the nomination that is before us. I know the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio will speak after me. Today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Jeffrey Helmick to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. I commend Senator Brown and Senator Portman for their diligence in securing a vote on this nomination. Mr. Helmick has the strong bipartisan support of his home State Senators. His nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago by a bipartisan majority. I thank the majority leader for his work in bringing this nomination up for a final vote. This is one of the nominations that I noted on Monday had been skipped, when we confirmed another district court judge. I look forward to working with Senator Kyl and Senator McCain to secure a vote on the nomination of Justice Andrew Hurwitz to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, working with Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg to secure a vote on the nomination of Judge Patty Shwartz to fill a vacancy on the Third Circuit, and with Senator Graham and Senator DeMint to set a vote on the nomination of Mary Lewis to fill a vacancy in South Carolina. I spoke on Monday about a recent Congressional Research Service report on judicial nominations. The report demonstrates what I have been saying for some time, that the time that nominations are being delayed from a final Senate vote is extraordinary. Pages 17 through 19 and figure 4 demonstrate the unprecedented obstruction. The median number of days President Obama's circuit court nominees have been delayed, from Committee report to a vote, has skyrocketed to 132 days, ``roughly 7.3 times greater than the median number of 18 days for the 61 confirmed circuit nominees of his immediate predecessor, President G.W. Bush.'' I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the CRS report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, delay is being demonstrated again with respect to the nominations of Justice Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Shwartz to the Third Circuit, Richard Taranto to the Federal Circuit, and William Kayatta to the First Circuit. These are not controversial or ideologically driven nominees. Justice Hurwitz is strongly supported by Senator Kyl and Senator McCain; William Kayatta is strongly supported by Senator Snowe and Senator Collins. Another point made by the Congressional Research Service is that fewer circuit court nominees have been confirmed than were confirmed during the first terms of any of President Obama's four predecessors President Reagan, President Geroge H.W. Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush. Similarly, district court nominees such as Mr. Helmick are being unnecessarily delayed. The median time from Committee vote to Senate vote has gone from 21 days during the George W. Bush presidency to 90 days for President Obama's district nominees. I wish Mr. Helmick had been confirmed back in March when he was first ready for a final Senate vote. He has been stalled for nearly 3 months. The Congressional Research Service report also notes that in contrast to President George W. Bush's district court nominees, who were confirmed at a rate of almost 95 percent, President Obama's district court nominees are being confirmed at a rate below 80 percent. And it concludes that ``the average time in the current Congress during which circuit and district court nominations have been pending on the Senate Executive Calendar before being confirmed has reached historically high levels.'' Once the Senate is allowed to vote on this nomination, we need agreement to vote on the 14 other judicial nominees stalled on the Executive Calendar. There are five more judicial nominees who had their hearing back on May 9 and should be voted on by the Judiciary Committee tomorrow. They too will need Senate votes for confirmation. Another point made by the Congressional Research Service in its recent report is that fewer of President Obama's district court nominees have been confirmed than were confirmed during the first terms of his four predecessors and vacancies remain higher now than when President Obama took office. Not a single one of the last three presidents has had judicial vacancies increase after their first term. In order to avoid this, the Senate needs to act on these nominees before adjourning this year. Nor would that be unusual. As the Congressional Research Service Report makes clear, in 5 of the last 8 presidential election years, the Senate has confirmed at least 22 circuit and district court nominees after May 31. The notable exceptions were during the last years of President Clinton's two terms in 1996 and 2000 when they would not allow confirmations to continue. Otherwise, it has been the rule rather than the exception. So, for example, the Senate confirmed 32 in 1980; 28 in 1984; 31 in 1992; 28 in 2004 at the end of President George W. Bush's first term; and 22 after May 31 in 2008 at the end of President Bush's second term. The Congressional Research Service Report about the treatment of President Obama's judicial nominations confirms what we already know that Senate Republicans have held President Obama's nominees to a different and unfair standard and engaged in unnecessary and harmful delays of consensus nominees. James Fallows, a well-respected journalist at The Atlantic authored an internet article dated June 5, 2012 based on his reading of the CRS Report, which is entitled ``American Dysfunction Watch: State of the Judiciary.'' In this article, Mr. Fallows notes that Mr. Obama ``is the only president in the past few decades . . . to have more seats vacant as he began his re-election year than he inherited when he took office.'' Moreover, Mr. Fallows further highlights the following: ``During the Obama presidency thus far, fewer circuit court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first terms of any of the four preceding Presidents (Reagan through G.W. Bush). Likewise, fewer Obama district court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first terms of the four preceding presidents.'' The ranking member on the Judiciary Committee has noted that we are doing better than when his predecessor was the ranking republican on the Committee, and that is accurate. But we have not made up for the historically low confirmations allowed during that period or for the fact that in each of the last 2 years the Senate has adjourned without acting on 19 judicial nominations ready for final action each year. Some seek to compare this first term of President Obama to President Bush's second 4-year term, but as the Congressional Research Service Report demonstrates, the proper comparison is to President Bush's first term. Nonetheless, I would remind the Senate that during President Bush's second term, the Republican majority managed the confirmation of 52 circuit and district court nominees while the Senate Democratic majority worked to confirm 68 judicial nominees during the last 2 years of that presidency and reduced vacancies to 34 while holding hearings and votes on judicial nominees well into September 2008. The simple fact is that the Senate is still lagging far behind what we accomplished during the first term of President George W. Bush. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As chairman, I worked with the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. Senate Democrats continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans to confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004, a presidential election year. At the end of that presidential term, the Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. In May 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to below 50 on the way to 28 that August. Despite 2004 being an election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically-driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and to significantly reduce judicial vacancies. By comparison, the vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. While vacancies were reduced to 43 by June of President Bush's fourth year, in June of President Obama's fourth year they remain in the mid-70s. They remained near or above 80 for nearly 3 years. We are 30 confirmations behind the pace we set in 2001 through 2004. Of course, we could move forward if the Senate were allowed to vote without further delay on the 15 judicial nominees ready for final action. The Senate could reduce vacancies below 60 and make progress. The Judiciary Committee should be voting on more judicial nominees this Thursday and we held a hearing for another three judicial nominees this afternoon. With cooperation from Senate Republicans, the Senate could make real progress and match what we have accomplished in prior years. After today, we still have much more work to do to help resolve the judicial vacancy crisis that has persisted for more than 3 years. Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. We need to work to reduce the vacancies that are burdening the Federal judiciary and the millions of Americans who rely on our Federal courts to seek justice. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these qualified judicial nominees so that we can address the judicial vacancy crisis and so they can serve the American people. Jeffrey Helmick was rated well qualified by a substantial majority of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In his 22-year legal career as a litigator in private practice, Mr. Helmick has tried approximately 40 cases to verdict or judgment. Currently a principal at his law firm, Mr. Helmick has the strong support of his home state Senators, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and Republican Senator Rob Portman. I join Senator Brown and Senator Portman in supporting the confirmation of Jeffrey Helmick. Exhibit 1 [From the Congressional Research Service, June 1, 2012] Nominations to U.S. Circuit and District Courts by President Obama During the 111th and 112th Congresses (By Barry J. McMillion, Analyst on the Federal Judiciary) Summary Recent Senate debates in the 112th Congress over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation (compared with other recent Presidents) as well as the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. The following report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical overview of President Obama's nominees to U.S. circuit court of appeals and U.S. district court judgeships, current through May 31, 2012. Findings include the following: President Obama thus far in his presidency has nominated 41 persons to U.S. circuit court judgeships, 29 of whom have been confirmed. Of the 150 persons nominated thus far by President Obama to U.S. district court judgeships, 117 have been confirmed. The greatest number of President Obama's circuit court nominees have been confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (6) and the Second Circuit (5). The greatest number of President Obama's district court nominees have been confirmed to judgeships located within the Ninth Circuit (22) and the fewest to district court judgeships within the First Circuit (3). District court vacancies have grown in number over the course of the Obama presidency, from 42 judgeships vacant when President Obama took office to 59 at present. There currently are 13 circuit court vacancies (the same number as when President Obama took office). During the Obama presidency thus far, fewer circuit court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first terms of any of the four preceding Presidents (Reagan through G.W. Bush). Likewise, fewer Obama district court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first terms of the four preceding Presidents. President Obama is the only one of the three most recent Presidents to have begun his fourth year in office with more circuit and district court judgeships vacant than when he took office. During the Obama presidency, the average waiting time from nomination to committee hearing has been, thus far, 69.6 days for circuit court nominees and 83.2 days for district court nominees. During the Obama presidency, the average waiting time from Senate Judiciary Committee report to Senate confirmation has been 139.7 days for circuit court nominees and 105.1 days for district court nominees. Various factors might help explain differences or variation found in judicial appointment statistics across recent presidencies. A President's opportunities to make circuit and district court appointments will be affected by the number of judicial vacancies existing at the time he takes office, as well as by how many judges depart office, and how many new judgeships are statutorily created, during his presidency. The time taken by a President to select nominees for judicial vacancies may be affected by whether the selection of lower court nominees must compete with filling a Supreme Court vacancy, whether the selection process itself is a priority for a President, the level of consultation between a President and a nominee's home state Senators, and the time taken by home state Senators to make judicial candidate recommendations. Institutional and political factors which may influence the processing of judicial nominations by the Senate include ideological differences between the President and the opposition party in the Senate, the extent of interest group opposition to certain nominees, the presence or absence of ``divided government,'' the point in a congressional session when nominations arrive in the Senate, whether nominees have the support of both of their home state Senators, and whether the blue slip policy of the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the support of both home state Senators before a nominee can receive a hearing or committee vote.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Jeffrey Helmick was rated ``well qualified'' by a substantial majority of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In his 22-year legal career as a litigator in private practice, Mr. Helmick has tried approximately 40 cases to verdict or judgment. Currently a principal at his law firm, Mr. Helmick has the strong support of his home State Senators who have spoken in support of this nomination. He was also voted out of the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago by a bipartisan majority. Given his distinguished record in private practice and his bipartisan support, I trust that he will be confirmed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to turn its attention to one of the most significant legislative issues on our agenda this year, consideration of the 2012 farm bill. I would first like to thank the chairwoman, Senator Stabenow, and ranking member, Senator Roberts, for working together in a bipartisan way to advance a farm bill--the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012--that can pass the Senate and become law this year. As a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and having worked closely with Senator Lugar on many bipartisan farm bills, I know how difficult the task can be of forging a comprehensive bill that addresses many competing needs. Some Senators may be scratching their heads trying to understand the urgency of passing this bill and why it matters to constituents in all of our States. The current farm bill expires at the end of September. We also have a serious problem with dairy policy that must be addressed before August 31; our dairy farmers will be left without a vital safety net if we do not act before then. I recognize that not every Senator comes from farm country or hears from many farmers in their State like I do. But this is a bill that affects every State and touches the lives of every American, through the healthy food on our kitchen tables or in our children classrooms; the clean water that is a result of critical conservation programs; rural businesses on Main Street receiving assistance from USDA; new energy products resulting from research supported by this bill; and the benefits we all receive from our local farms and food systems that benefit from this bill. The farm bill also has a reach far beyond our borders with the international food aid that provides lifesaving support around the globe. Make no mistake: Farming is part of our national security. Imagine what it would be like if we had to depend on imported food, the way we depend on imported oil. Keeping American agriculture strong and vibrant is at the core of this bill, but this bill does much more. It will also help keep our rural communities strong, and will support those Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. Every Senator should know that this farm bill makes real reforms, and nets real savings. This bill makes long-overdue reforms to agriculture policy, and consolidates and streamlines USDA programs, all the while cutting $23 billion in mandatory spending. The bill before the Senate today proves that when Democrats and Republicans sit down and work in a bipartisan manner we can make progress and accomplish something real, and do so with fiscal restraint. Is this the farm bill that I, or any individual Senator, would have drafted? Of course not. There are conservation and energy programs that farmers in Vermont would like to see strengthened, many nutrition programs that are vital in keeping food on the tables of millions of Americans, and a wide array of rural development programs that do not have mandatory funding in this bill. But I recognize that this bill is a compromise, and I will continue to work with the chairwoman and ranking member to make this the best farm bill possible. I am especially pleased that the farm bill includes a major dairy reform proposal that I know will help both our producers and consumers move away from the dangerous roller coaster of price swings. For our farmers in Vermont, these dairy reforms are the key to our consideration of a farm bill. I regularly hear from Vermont farmers about this. We simply must free our dairy farmers from this destructive cycle of volatile price changes. The current Federal safety net provides no protection for dairy farmers from this roller coaster of price volatility. The 2012 farm bill scraps outdated price supports and the Milk Income Loss Contract Program. It establishes a new risk management plan that protects farm income when margins shrink dangerously, and a stabilization program to allow farmers to take a proactive role in easing the instability in our dairy markets. And it accomplishes this at a lower cost than the program that it replaces and contributes to the savings in this bill. It is a voluntary program and can be tailored by the farmer to fit the farmer's individual needs. These reforms have the support of dairy farmers across the country, and they have been developed to move us away from the regional dairy fights and the constant policy conflicts between small and large farms. The 2009 dairy crisis brought plummeting milk prices and sky-high feed costs that combined to force far too many U.S. dairy farmers out of business, and saddled thousands more with losses and debt from which it will take years to recover. After those dark days in 2009, dairy farmers from across the country came together for a solution that will help them and consumers move away from these volatile price swings. Dairy is Vermont's single most important agricultural commodity, and dairy products account for upward of 83 percent--or 90 percent, depending on market prices--of Vermont's agricultural products sales. If any Senator has questions about the dairy reforms in this bill, I would welcome discussing what this farm bill does for dairy farms. There has been a lot of misinformation about these provisions, and I welcome the opportunity to eliminate any confusion. I have tried to be supportive of programs which do not directly benefit Vermont, and I intend to vote to help farmers in other regions--just as I hope other Senators will join me in supporting dairy farmers in Vermont, and throughout the Nation. Just like corn, wheat, soybean, sugar, cotton and the many other types of farmers in our country, our dairy farmers work extremely hard for a living. Dairy farmers deserve a voice in the crafting of this farm bill, and I have been proud to ensure that their voices are being heard in shaping this bill. While listening to our farmers in writing this bill, we also need to hear the voices of the millions of Americans struggling every day to put food on the table. The nutrition assistance and emergency feeding programs in this farm bill are needed now more than ever. Because of the greater need for services, these programs currently do not satisfy demand. The numbers are staggering even for a State the size of Vermont. In 2010 alone, an average of more than 87,000 Vermonters received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, benefits each month. On top of that, nearly 86,000 Vermonters accessed food from our State's food pantries and soup kitchens. Sadly, those numbers have continued to rise in Vermont and across the country, and they reflect how critically important the nutrition title of the farm bill is to so many States. Ensuring these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all Americans in need is a key part of enacting a strong farm bill for this country. Calls to reduce food assistance as a way to solve our Nation's deficit problems are misguided and shortsighted. Axing tens of billions of dollars from the SNAP program would eliminate food assistance for millions of Americans and deny hundreds of thousands of American children school meals. I am disappointed that this bill includes $4.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, cuts that will predominately come from Northeastern States. Despite these cuts, the farm bill does make significant improvements to nutrition programs, including important funding for emergency food assistance and initiatives to encourage better health through improved access to local foods, and better nutrition for our children and seniors. I am pleased that this bill also makes great advances to support self-sufficiency and food security in our low-income communities, helping to correct the ``food deserts'' that we experience in both urban and rural communities. At a time when more Americans than ever before are at risk of going hungry, and food pantry shelves across the country are bare, I am committed to working with the chairwoman and ranking member to find ways to make these nutrition programs even stronger in order to help the people who need it most. I hope that the full Senate can now come together in a bipartisan way, just as we did in the Agriculture Committee, to pass this bill, which will have a tremendous impact on our farms, our rural communities, our kitchen tables, and our economic recovery. This farm bill represents an investment in American agriculture that will benefit our producers, our rural communities, our Main Street businesses, taxpayers, and consumers, and particularly the neediest among us. It deserves the Senate's full and focused attention, and it deserves the support of every Senator.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we have an opportunity to take another long overdue step to close the wage gap between men and women. Equal pay for equal work should not be a Democratic nor a Republican issue but an American issue of basic fairness. It is shameful that gender discrimination still exists in our country and more so at a time when women make an ever-increasing number of heads of households. That is why I am proud to join Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Vermont has been a leader in the fight of equal pay for equal work. According to a recent report by the American Association of University Women, the State of Vermont leads the Nation, second only to the District of Columbia, in equal pay issues, yet Vermont women still make just 84 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Over a decade ago, the Vermont Legislature passed legislation requiring equal pay for equal work, barring employers from retaliating against employees for disclosing the amount of their wages, and made it easier to file wage discrimination claims. Unfortunately, not all States offer these protections. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in the right direction to bring Vermont's inclusive example to the Federal level. The Paycheck Fairness Act sets out a clear path to address the systemic problems that result from pay disparities. It takes critical steps to ensure that employers follow the law; prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information or for filing a charge in an Equal Pay Act proceeding; strengthens penalties for equal pay violations; adds programs for training, research, technical assistance to help better identify and handle wage disputes; and establishes a national award for pay equity in the workplace recognizing employers who demonstrate ``substantial effort to eliminate pay disparities between men and women.'' The Paycheck Fairness Act would also narrow the criteria under which an employer can defend pay disparities and enlist the Department of Labor to help eliminate gender-based pay gaps. This bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't taking home smaller paychecks because of their gender. Another piece of this legislation specifically deals with reforming the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law. It would mandate record-keeping and data collection for better enforcement of the law. Under this bill, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be directed to issue regulations for the collection of wage data from employers based on sex, race, and ethnicity. This legislation would be another in a series of bills seeking to address the harms against working women. The Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963 to protect employees against wage discrimination with respect to an individual's race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. It is true that we have closed the wage gap for women versus their male counterparts from 61 cents on the dollar in 1961 to 77 cents today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, that decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women. Being 77 percent right is not good enough. The efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace must continue. In 2009, I joined Senator Mikulski and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. That bill was necessary to remedy the Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. The Ledbetter decision stripped back 40 years of progress to eliminate workplace discrimination. In that case, Ms. Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years as a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, AL. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, five members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act restored victims' ability to file suit for pay discrimination and was among the first bills to be signed into law by President Obama. It is not surprising that yesterday the administration announced its strong support for the Paycheck Fairness Act. Congress should send this legislation to President Obama to be signed into law, without delay. Wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one line of work or level of education. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in securing that equal pay for equal work is more than just a slogan or an ideal but a reality for every American, regardless of gender, race, or any other factor that does not evaluate people on the basis of what they can offer and what they can contribute to the workforce. I urge all Senators to join in passing the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure all of our daughters and granddaughters and future generations of Americans are not subject to the same injustice that has plagued women for decades.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it has been more than a month since the Senate came together to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012. This bill, commonly referred to as VAWA, reflects the tradition of bringing together people from both political parties to work with professionals in the field and address the needs of victims-- all victims. More than two-thirds of the Senate, including 15 Republicans, voted for this common sense legislation. It is a rare feat in the Senate these days, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, but it demonstrates that the Leahy-Crapo reauthorization bill is about saving lives, not partisan politics. Few laws have had a greater impact on the lives of women in this country than the Violence Against Women Act. Because of this law, the days of dismissing domestic and sexual violence crimes with a joke or a shrug are over. The resources, training, and law enforcement tools provided by VAWA over the past 18 years have transformed the criminal justice and community-based responses to abuse. It gave support and protection to victims who for generations had been blamed, humiliated, and ignored. I had hoped the House Republicans would follow our demonstration of bipartisanship by moving forward with the Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill. Instead, the Republican leadership in the House chose to proceed with a bill that doesn't reflect the core values of VAWA. I mention its core values because we worked--both parties in this body--to reflect what is most important in VAWA. The House Republican bill does not include protections for all victims. It takes away existing protections that have proven effective in preventing domestic and sexual violence. In short, the House bill is not VAWA. Regrettably, the House Republican leadership would not even allow a vote on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill, which truly does do the job. They would not allow open debate regarding the relative merits of the different versions of the bill--ours, which protects all victims, and theirs, which rolls back protections. Had the House had the opportunity to vote on the Senate-passed bipartisan bill, I believe the President would have signed it and it would now be law. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, along with most Democratic Members, voted against the restrictive House bill. It is not surprising that the House Republican bill failed to gain support among those who actually work with victims, the people who see these victims on a daily basis in all parts of the country. When challenged on the House floor to name any law enforcement or victim advocacy organization that supported the House Republican bill, their lead sponsor could not name a single one. Why? More than 320 organizations that work with the victims of domestic and sexual violence opposed that bill. By contrast more than 1,000 local, State, and national organizations supported the bipartisan Senate bill, including hundreds of law enforcement, victim advocates, and faith-based groups. Why? Because in our bill, we worked at it. We did it the old-fashioned way--Republicans and Democrats working together after months of discussion with stakeholders from across the country and all political persuasions from the right to the left. The provisions in our bill that protect battered immigrant women, Native women, and the most vulnerable among us who have had trouble accessing services were recommendations from those very professionals who work with crime victims every day. The bipartisan Senate bill is intended to respond to the changing, unmet needs of victims and to prevent future acts of domestic and sexual violence. Instead of picking and choosing, as they tried to, among who would get protection, we came up with a simple fact. We said a victim is a victim is a victim. If somebody has been victimized, the police don't go and say: Can we help this battered person, maybe even murdered person? We might be able to get involved in this, provided they are not an immigrant or provided they are not a Native American or provided only if they are straight. That is not the way it works. I still have nightmares over some of the crime scenes I visited at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning when I was a prosecutor and I saw people who had been badly battered, badly injured. I never heard a police officer say: Before we go any further on this, what category does this battered victim fall into? Because unless they fall into one of these specific categories--such as the House bill had--we can't do anything for them. No, no police officer ever said that in my presence nor in anybody else's presence. It was law enforcement who educated us on the importance of the U visa to keeping our streets safe and encouraged us to support a modest improvement to this program. The enhanced consultation provisions in the bill were included after domestic and sexual assault coalitions and other victim advocacy groups told us that they wanted to coordinate their activities in a more effective way with VAWA state administrators and Federal agencies. Victim service providers also told us that the LGBT community experiences violence at the same rate as the broader community but faces a serious lack of available services. It was the Native American community that informed us about the epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities and the need to increase local prosecution of these crimes. It is unacceptable that nearly three out of five Native American women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners, yet the percentage of these cases that are prosecuted is appallingly low. That is why our bill provides law enforcement with additional tools to combat domestic and sexual violence in Tribal communities. The Senate has already considered and soundly defeated a conscripted version of the bill, like the House Republicans' version, that would not help all victims. We voted 37 62 against the Hutchison-Grassley amendment last April. This was not a case where an amendment did not obtain a supermajority of more than 60 votes. The votes against it were bipartisan and more than 60. I do not understand why the House Republican leadership has gone to tremendous lengths to avoid debating and voting on the bipartisan Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill. The House Republican leadership has refused to consider two House bills that mirror the Leahy-Crapo bill, including one introduced by a Republican. They also raised a procedural technicality as an excuse to avoid debating the Senate bill, even though the Speaker of the House has the ability to waive that technicality and allow the House to move forward to consider the bipartisan Senate bill. The Majority Leader tried to move this forward 2 weeks ago by proposing a way to resolve the technical objection by House Republicans to considering the bipartisan Senate-passed bill, but the Republican leader objected. Frankly, victims should not be forced to wait any longer. They will not benefit from the improvements made by the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, unless both Houses of Congress vote to pass this legislation. The problems and barriers facing victims of domestic and sexual violence are too serious for Congress to delay. Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old. Helping these victims, all of them, should be our goal. I will continue to work with our leadership in the Senate to come up with a solution that can move us past this impasse and send back to the House a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill that protects all victims. We know we can do that because the Senate has already passed such a bill. I am still hopeful that the House will do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Timothy Hillman to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Hillman has the strong bipartisan support of his home state Senators. His nomination was reported with a near unanimous vote of 17 1 by the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago, with the only objection coming from Senator Lee's customary protest vote. I thank the majority leader for his work in securing a vote on Judge Hillman's nomination. I would note, however, that we have passed over consideration of four other nominees who are all listed on the executive calendar ahead of Judge Hillman. Those nominees--Andrew Hurwitz for the Ninth Circuit, Jeffrey Helmick for the Northern District of Ohio, Patty Shwartz for the Third Circuit, and Mary Lewis for the District of South Carolina-- are all extremely well qualified, have the support of their home state Senators, were reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee, and deserve an up-or-down vote. I hope we will have a vote on them soon. Judge Hillman could and should have been confirmed back in March when the Majority Leader first filed cloture on his nomination. While I regret that he was not part of the original agreement reached by the Majority Leader and the Republican leader for a floor vote, I am glad that an agreement was reached to consider his nomination today. Once we vote on Judge Hillman, we need to agree to vote on the 15 other judicial nominees stalled on the Executive calendar because there are still far too many vacancies plaguing our courts today. The Congressional Research Service recently released a report about the treatment of President Obama's judicial nominations that confirms what we already know--that Senate Republicans have held President Obama's nominees to a different and unfair standard. For example, 95 percent of district court nominees in President George W. Bush's first term were confirmed, while only 78 percent of President Obama's district court nominees have been confirmed. President Obama's nominees are also being delayed and forced to wait far longer on the Senate floor than President Bush's nominees. The median wait time for President Obama's district nominees after having been reported favorably out of Committee is more than 4 times longer than for President Bush's district nominees. The median wait time for President Obama's circuit nominees is 7.3 times longer than for President Bush's circuit nominees. The simple fact is that the Senate is still lagging far behind what we accomplished during the first term of President George W. Bush. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As chairman, I worked with the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. Senate Democrats continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans to confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004, a Presidential election year. At the end of that Presidential term, the Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. In May 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to below 50 on the way to 28 that August. Despite 2004 being an election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically-driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies. By working together, we lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly as Senate Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. In October 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked to reduce judicial vacancies and were able to get back down to 34 vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 2008. By comparison, the vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. While vacancies were reduced below 50 by May of President Bush's fourth year, in June of President Obama's fourth year they remain in the mid-70s. They remained near or above 80 for nearly 3 years. We are more than 30 confirmations behind the pace we set in 2001 through 2004. Of course, we could move forward if the Senate were allowed to vote without further delay on the 16 judicial nominees ready for final action. The Senate could reduce vacancies below 60 and make progress. The recently released CRS Report also notes that in five of the last eight Presidential election years, the Senate has confirmed at least 22 nominees after May 31. Because of how far we are lagging from President Bush's record of confirmations, we should be working to exceed those numbers. We can start today by confirming Judge Hillman and the other 15 judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. Another five judicial nominees were ready for final Judicial Committee action in May but held over by Committee Republicans. Those five nominees should be voted out of the Committee this Thursday. In addition, we are holding a hearing for another three judicial nominees this Wednesday. With cooperation from Senate Republicans the Senate could make real progress and match what we have accomplished in prior years. Timothy Hillman was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating. He has been a federal magistrate judge on the court in which he has been nominated for nearly 6 years. Prior to his service as a magistrate judge, Judge Hillman served for 15 years as a state court judge on the Massachusetts Superior Court and the Massachusetts District Court. He has also spent significant time in private practice and several years of experience as an Assistant District Attorney in the Worcester County District Attorney's Office. Judge Hillman is a respected and experienced jurist in Massachusetts. His nomination has the strong support of both his home state Senators, Senator John Kerry and Senator Scott Brown, who introduced him to the Judiciary Committee at his hearing in February. Senator Brown said of Judge Hillman: We have in Judge Hillman somebody who is greatly respected in Massachusetts and especially in the Worcester area through his innovation and integrity and dedication to fairness. He is really to be commended, and I want to thank he and his wife for, obviously, putting up with the process. And I am going to do everything in my power to encourage my colleagues to make sure that we get a vote on this right away, because Massachusetts needs a jurist like him right away to do the people's business, and that is so critically important. While this vote on Judge Hillman is hardly ``right away,'' as Senate Republicans have continued to needlessly stall his nomination for close to 3 months now, it is finally occurring. This consensus nomination is another example of a judge's confirmation being delayed needlessly for months and months for no good reason or purpose other than delay. Given Judge Hillman's qualifications and significant bipartisan support, he should be confirmed easily. After today, we still have much more work to do to help resolve the judicial vacancy crisis that has persisted for more than 3 years. When the Majority Leader and the Republican leader came to their interim understanding in March, it resulted in votes on 14 of the 22 judicial nominations then awaiting final consideration. Because the arrangement took months to implement what the Senate could have done in hours, the backlog of judicial vacancies and judicial nominees continues. Today, we have 16 judicial nominees awaiting action. Let us do what we did on November 14, 2002, when we confirmed 18 of President Bush's judicial nominations on a single day. Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. We need to work to reduce the vacancies that are burdening the Federal judiciary and the millions of Americans who rely on our Federal courts to seek justice. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these qualified judicial nominees so that we can address the judicial vacancy crisis and so they can serve the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to engage in a colloquy with Senator Harkin. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his hard work as chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and, in particular, on the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act that the Senate is now considering. I appreciate Senator Harkin reaching out to me about those amendments to his bill that fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. One of those amendments concerns the issue of synthetic drugs--a major problem that the committee has been addressing.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes. That amendment is the same in substance as three bills that the Senate Judiciary Committee passed last year--the Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act, S. 409; the Combating Designer Drugs Act, S. 839; and the Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act, S. 605. It addresses substances commonly known as bath salts and other synthetic drugs that have no legitimate use and can too easily be obtained under current law. Bath salts have resulted in a number of reports of individuals acting violently in the United States, including in Vermont, and have led to injuries to those using them and to others.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree. I want to be sure that the amendment to be included will be Senator Portman's amendment that corresponds precisely to the bills that were considered by the Judiciary Committee. Adding chemicals to schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act has serious consequences and is not a step that we should undertake without careful consideration. Do you understand that the consent to include Senator Portman's amendment is not consent to further amend the Controlled Substances Act, that it is limited to these chemicals and matters contained in that amendment, and that have been considered and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Mr. LEAHY. It is unfortunate that the three synthetic drug bills that the Judiciary Committee passed last summer have been unable to move on the Senate floor because they have been held up by one Senator. They have been cleared for Senate passage on the Democratic side for some time.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his assistance on this matter.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for unanimously adopting my amendment to address Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, concerns with section 708 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. I especially thank Senators Harkin and Enzi--the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee--for working with me to protect the American public's ability to access important health and safety information under FOIA. My amendment improves the bill by allowing the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to obtain important information about drug inspections and drug investigations undertaken by foreign governments, while at the same time ensuring that the American public has access to information about potential health and safety dangers. Specifically, the amendment narrows the scope of the FOIA exemption in the original bill to No. 1 cover only information obtained from foreign government agencies and No. 2 clarify that the information to be withheld must be voluntarily provided to the FDA pursuant to a written Memorandum of Understanding. The amendment also preserves the right of the Congress to obtain this information. Lastly, the amendment places a 3 year time limit for withholding information pursuant to the exemption, unless a different time period is specified by the foreign government agency--so that the information will not automatically be shielded from the public indefinitely. For more than four decades, the Freedom of Information Act has been an indispensible tool for the public to obtain Government information. This law carefully balances the need for the Government to keep some information confidential, with the need to ensure free flow of information in our Democratic society. I am pleased that by unanimously adopting my amendment, the Senate has worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that this careful balance is maintained regarding FDA drug inspections and investigations. I thank the many open government and consumer groups--including OpenTheGovernment.org and Public Citizen--that supported this amendment. Again, I also thank and congratulate the lead sponsors of this bill on the passage of this important legislation. Amendment No. 2146, as Modified

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Manchin's amendment, amendment 2151 to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, seeks to address the problem of prescription opiate drugs by tightening restrictions on hydrocodone. Opiate prescription drugs like hydrocodone have been a tremendous and growing problem in Vermont, as they have in West Virginia. I thank Senator Manchin for working with me to make the amendment better. The scourge of prescription drug abuse has had a devastating effect in communities across the country. I heard about the lives destroyed by this epidemic and the violence and other ills it has brought with it in several hearings in Vermont in recent years. Senator Manchin's amendment seeks to make it more difficult for prescription drugs to get into the hands of those who would abuse them by requiring prescriptions more comprehensively and by restricting storage and transportation. I hope these steps will be helpful. I am glad Senator Manchin was willing to work with me to modify the amendment so that it did not cause as many sentencing increases, and particularly to eliminate what would have been a new mandatory minimum sentence. Those who work on the problem of prescription drugs every day have not identified a lack of adequate criminal sentences to be part of the problem, so a significant change in the sentencing scheme was not needed or intended. Indeed, the proliferation of severe sentences for drug offenses and of mandatory minimum sentences in particular is a large part of what has led to the serious problem we face now in having too many people in prison for too long. These sentences have contributed to the runaway prison costs that are so crippling to Federal and State budgets. Overwhelming prison costs take resources away from programs focusing on drug prevention, drug treatment, and strong law enforcement, all of which are more effective in helping communities take on prescription drug problems than are lengthy sentences. I am glad that we could work to ensure that this amendment would help to address our prescription drug problem without contributing to the overincarceration of drug offenders. I know some doctors in Vermont and elsewhere continue to have concerns about the effect this amendment will have on getting prescriptions to those who need them. I hope we can continue working together to ensure that we tackle the difficult problem of prescription drug addiction without hindering crucial medical care. I thank Senator Manchin for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation that will permanently authorize four expiring immigration programs. I thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this needed legislation. The bill we introduce will permanently authorize the EB 5 Regional Center Program, the voluntary E-Verify electronic work authorization program, the State 30 J 1 Visa program that Senator Conrad champions and the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program that is so important to Senator Hatch. All of these programs have been in temporary status for many years, and the time has come for Congress to make them permanent so that the proponents of these programs can get to work building upon the benefits these programs bring to communities across the country. Permanency for these programs will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and enhance the security of American workers. Permanency will help medically underserved areas obtain talented physicians and religious institutions welcome individuals from around the world to participate in good works. These programs serve diverse and important interests in America, and should become permanent fixtures in our immigration law. I am particularly pleased that the EB 5 Regional Center Program is a part of this package. With permanency, I believe this program can become an even greater economic driver than it has been in communities across the United States. Making the program permanent will also create a solid foundation for me and others interested in its success to begin in earnest to make improvements and reforms that will make it more business friendly, more predictable and stable for investors, and will provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with the tools it needs to ensure that the program meets the highest standards of quality and integrity. There is little reason that this program should not continue to improve as a deficit-neutral source of capital investment and job creation across America. I hope our introduction of this legislation today is the beginning of a strong bipartisan effort to make these programs permanent. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and others to accomplish this goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation that will permanently authorize four expiring immigration programs. I thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this needed legislation. The bill we introduce will permanently authorize the EB 5 Regional Center Program, the voluntary E-Verify electronic work authorization program, the State 30 J 1 Visa program that Senator Conrad champions and the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program that is so important to Senator Hatch. All of these programs have been in temporary status for many years, and the time has come for Congress to make them permanent so that the proponents of these programs can get to work building upon the benefits these programs bring to communities across the country. Permanency for these programs will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and enhance the security of American workers. Permanency will help medically underserved areas obtain talented physicians and religious institutions welcome individuals from around the world to participate in good works. These programs serve diverse and important interests in America, and should become permanent fixtures in our immigration law. I am particularly pleased that the EB 5 Regional Center Program is a part of this package. With permanency, I believe this program can become an even greater economic driver than it has been in communities across the United States. Making the program permanent will also create a solid foundation for me and others interested in its success to begin in earnest to make improvements and reforms that will make it more business friendly, more predictable and stable for investors, and will provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with the tools it needs to ensure that the program meets the highest standards of quality and integrity. There is little reason that this program should not continue to improve as a deficit-neutral source of capital investment and job creation across America. I hope our introduction of this legislation today is the beginning of a strong bipartisan effort to make these programs permanent. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and others to accomplish this goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Harkin and ranking member Enzi for including the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act in their substitute amendment to S. 3187. I introduced the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Act, S. 1886, last year along with Senator Grassley and others, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent in March. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to take action on it. The Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act has the support of industry and consumer groups and bipartisan backing in the House of Representatives. It will strengthen the provisions already included in S. 3187 that are intended to improve the safety of our supply chain and increase penalties for adulterated drugs. This provision increases penalties for trafficking counterfeit drugs to a level commensurate with counterfeit cases in which the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury. By strengthening the penalties appropriately, it will deter the sale of dangerous counterfeit drugs. Few things are more important to consumer well-being than ensuring the safety of our pharmaceutical supply chain. Law enforcement is finding counterfeit versions of drugs that patients rely on to treat blood clots, cholesterol, prostate cancer, influenza, Alzheimer's, and other serious conditions. Counterfeit drugs reportedly result in 100,000 deaths globally each year and account for an estimated $75 billion in annual revenue for criminal enterprises. We must do more to prevent and deter this conduct. In addition to protecting consumers, deterring the manufacture and sale of counterfeit drugs also protects American intellectual property, helping American workers and manufacturers. That is why this legislation has the broad support of not only the pharmaceutical industry and consumer groups such as the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies and Easter Seals but also the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I appreciate the work of Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi to protect American consumers from adulterated and counterfeit drugs, and I thank them for including the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act as part of that effort in this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing attention to this important issue and for all her hard work addressing issues of domestic and sexual violence. As a Senator and a prosecutor, I have found that transportation is a particular problem for victims of domestic and sexual violence who live in rural areas.

Mr. LEAHY. This presents a real safety risk for women.

Mr. LEAHY. Would you agree that the availability of transportation is critical to making sure all women have access to the services provided by crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers?

Mr. LEAHY. Have you found that transportation is something that crisis centers are currently able to provide?