Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unless the Senator from California seeks recognition----

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin and Grassley in introducing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This bipartisan bill seeks to restore crucial worker protections that have been cast aside by a narrow, 5 4 Supreme Court decision. The bill also reaffirms the contributions made by older Americans in the workforce and ensures that employees will be evaluated based on their performance and not by arbitrary criteria such as age. Congress has long worked to enact civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, with the intent to extend protections against workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened these protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which passed in the Senate 93 to five. These statutes established a clear legal standard and Congressional intent: an employer's decision to fire or demote an employee may not be motivated in whole or in part by the employee's age. However, the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL unilaterally erased that clear legal standard. A slim 5 4 majority threw out a jury verdict in favor Jack Gross, a 32-year employee of a major financial company, who sued under the ADEA. The jury had concluded that age was a motivating factor in the company's decision to demote Gross and reassign his duties to a younger, significantly less qualified worker. But a divisive Supreme Court ignored its own precedent and congressional intent. Five justices decided that workers like Mr. Gross must now prove that age was the only motivating factor in a demotion or termination. The Court also required workers to essentially introduce a ``smoking gun'' in order to prove discrimination. By imposing such high standards, the Court sided with big business and made it easier for employers to discriminate on the basis of age with impunity so long as they could cloak it with another reason. As Mr. Gross stated during a Judiciary Committee hearing that I held shortly after this controversial decision was handed down, ``I feel like my case has been hijacked by the high court for the sole purpose of rewriting both the letter and the spirit of the ADEA.'' The Supreme Court's divisive holding has created much uncertainty in our civil rights laws and it is incumbent on Congress to clarify our intent and the statutory protections that all hardworking Americans deserve. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores the original intent of the ADEA and three other Federal anti- discrimination statutes. It makes clear that employers cannot get away with age discrimination by simply coming up with a reason to terminate an employee that sounds less controversial. The bill re-establishes Congress' intent that age discrimination is unlawful even if it is only part of the reason to demote a worker. Under the bill, a worker would also be able to introduce any relevant admissible form of evidence to show discrimination, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. To avoid future misreading of congressional intent, I encourage Federal courts to take particular note of the carefully negotiated ``Findings and Purposes'' section in this bipartisan bill. The bill unequivocally rejects the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gross not only in age discrimination cases but in all cases where courts have applied this case as binding precedent. In other words, Gross is not the proper legal standard for anti-discrimination statutes, whether or not a particular statute is directly amended by this bill. I commend Senator Harkin for his efforts over the past three years to negotiate a bipartisan bill to restore the civil rights protections that all Americans deserve in the workplace. I also thank Senator Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, for his commitment to this issue. I urge my fellow Senators to join this bipartisan effort and show their commitment to ending age discrimination in the workplace. In these difficult economic times, hardworking Americans deserve our help. We must not allow a thin majority of the Supreme Court to eliminate the protections that Congress has enacted for them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin and Grassley in introducing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This bipartisan bill seeks to restore crucial worker protections that have been cast aside by a narrow, 5 4 Supreme Court decision. The bill also reaffirms the contributions made by older Americans in the workforce and ensures that employees will be evaluated based on their performance and not by arbitrary criteria such as age. Congress has long worked to enact civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, with the intent to extend protections against workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened these protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which passed in the Senate 93 to five. These statutes established a clear legal standard and Congressional intent: an employer's decision to fire or demote an employee may not be motivated in whole or in part by the employee's age. However, the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL unilaterally erased that clear legal standard. A slim 5 4 majority threw out a jury verdict in favor Jack Gross, a 32-year employee of a major financial company, who sued under the ADEA. The jury had concluded that age was a motivating factor in the company's decision to demote Gross and reassign his duties to a younger, significantly less qualified worker. But a divisive Supreme Court ignored its own precedent and congressional intent. Five justices decided that workers like Mr. Gross must now prove that age was the only motivating factor in a demotion or termination. The Court also required workers to essentially introduce a ``smoking gun'' in order to prove discrimination. By imposing such high standards, the Court sided with big business and made it easier for employers to discriminate on the basis of age with impunity so long as they could cloak it with another reason. As Mr. Gross stated during a Judiciary Committee hearing that I held shortly after this controversial decision was handed down, ``I feel like my case has been hijacked by the high court for the sole purpose of rewriting both the letter and the spirit of the ADEA.'' The Supreme Court's divisive holding has created much uncertainty in our civil rights laws and it is incumbent on Congress to clarify our intent and the statutory protections that all hardworking Americans deserve. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores the original intent of the ADEA and three other Federal anti- discrimination statutes. It makes clear that employers cannot get away with age discrimination by simply coming up with a reason to terminate an employee that sounds less controversial. The bill re-establishes Congress' intent that age discrimination is unlawful even if it is only part of the reason to demote a worker. Under the bill, a worker would also be able to introduce any relevant admissible form of evidence to show discrimination, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. To avoid future misreading of congressional intent, I encourage Federal courts to take particular note of the carefully negotiated ``Findings and Purposes'' section in this bipartisan bill. The bill unequivocally rejects the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gross not only in age discrimination cases but in all cases where courts have applied this case as binding precedent. In other words, Gross is not the proper legal standard for anti-discrimination statutes, whether or not a particular statute is directly amended by this bill. I commend Senator Harkin for his efforts over the past three years to negotiate a bipartisan bill to restore the civil rights protections that all Americans deserve in the workplace. I also thank Senator Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, for his commitment to this issue. I urge my fellow Senators to join this bipartisan effort and show their commitment to ending age discrimination in the workplace. In these difficult economic times, hardworking Americans deserve our help. We must not allow a thin majority of the Supreme Court to eliminate the protections that Congress has enacted for them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the confirmation of two highly qualified, consensus nominees to the Federal bench: Mary Elizabeth Phillips to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri and Thomas Owen Rice to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. I thank the majority leader for pressing for these votes. These are nominees who were reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last October, almost 5 months ago. They are both supported by their home State Senators, Democrats and Republicans, as are all of the judicial nominations of this President been who have been voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last month the majority leader had to file cloture petitions to end a 4-month and 2-day filibuster of the confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida and to end the 5 month filibuster of the nomination of Jesse Furman, a former counselor to Attorney General Mukasey. The majority leader should not have had to file cloture petitions for the Senate to vote on these outstanding judicial nominees. Senate Republicans have filibustered nine of President Obama's judicial nominations despite the fact that he has reached out to both Republican and Democratic home State Senators and nominated qualified, ideologically moderate men and women to fill vacancies on our Federal courts. From the start of President Obama's term, Republican Senators have applied a double standard to this President's nominees. Last week, at a meeting of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah conceded that a ``new standard'' is being applied to President Obama's nominations. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference on district court nominees to the home State Senators. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama's highly qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction. The nominations the Senate considers today did not receive a single negative vote in the Judiciary Committee. Still, they have been stalled from confirmation for almost 5 months. It is good that Senate Republicans are finally allowing them to be considered. But we need to do much more. These are only 2 of the 14 remaining judicial nominations voted on by the Judiciary Committee last year that have been stalled by Senate Republicans for months. They all should have been considered and confirmed last December. President Obama's nominees are being treated differently than those of any President, Democratic or Republican, before him. Of those 14 judicial nominations still on the calendar from last year, none are the kind of divisive ideological nominees that should lead to the kinds of delay we have seen, let alone filibusters. President Obama should be praised by Republicans and Democrats for making consensus picks like his two nominations to fill vacancies on Federal Circuit courts, Stephanie Dawn Thacker of West Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California, nominated to fill one of the many judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Thacker, an experienced litigator and prosecutor, has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Rockefeller and Manchin. Judge Nguyen, whose family fled to the United States in 1975 after the fall of South Vietnam, was confirmed unanimously to the district court in 2009 and would become the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve on a U.S. court of appeals. Both were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year, and both should be considered and confirmed by the Senate without additional damaging delays. With 1 out of nearly every 10 Federal judgeships vacant, the Senate should be acting on all of the judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee but that Republican objections are stalling from final action. Regrettably, delay and obstruction have stalled action on President Obama's judicial nominees since the beginning of his administration. After the first year of President Obama's first term, only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges were confirmed, the lowest total in 50 years. Senate Republicans allowed the Senate to confirm only 48 circuit and district court nominations the next year. That set a modern record for fewest judicial nominations confirmed during a President's first 2 years in office, the lowest in 35 years. As a result, judicial vacancies rose again over 110 and stayed around 90 for the longest period of historically high vacancies in 35 years. This is in stark contrast to the 100 confirmations that I oversaw during the last 17 months of President Bush's first 2 years in office. That action led to a significant reduction in judicial vacancies. The truth is that the actions of Senate Republicans in stalling judicial nominations during President Obama's administration has led to what the Congressional Research Service documented as the longest period of historically high judicial vacancy rates in modern times. At the end of President Obama's second year and again at the end of last year, Senate Republicans opted to obstruct final confirmation votes on consensus judicial nominees for no good reason. Last year it took us until June to make up the ground we lost when Senate Republicans refused to complete action on judicial nominees at the end of 2010. This year the Senate started with 19 judicial nominees pending on the Senate's calendar, all but 1 of them reported with significant bipartisan support, and 16 of them unanimously. To date, the Senate has only been allowed to work its way through five. This means that it could again be summer before the Senate is allowed to work its way through the judicial nominees who could, and should, have been confirmed the year before. The result of the Senate Republicans' obstruction is that the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country is compromised. Millions of Americans, who are in overburdened districts and circuits, experience unnecessary delays in having their cases resolved. One hundred and thirty million Americans live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if Senate Republicans would just agree to vote on the nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. It is wrong to delay votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominees. 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 hard-working 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. In his ``2010 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' Chief Justice Roberts rightly called attention to the problem of overburdened courts across the country. Unfortunately, the unprecedented obstruction of consensus judicial nominations by Senate Republicans who dramatically departed from the Senate's longstanding tradition of regularly considering consensus, noncontroversial nominations, marked a new chapter in what Chief Justice Roberts calls the ``persistent problem'' of filling judicial vacancies. If Republican Senators were concerned about ensuring that our courts have the judges they need to administer justice for the American people, they would not have refused consent for the Senate to consider these consensus judicial nominees. The obstruction reminds me of the Republican pocket filibusters that blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations from Senate consideration. When I became chairman in 2001 and made the committee blue slip process public for the first time and worked to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months, I hoped we were past these partisan tactics. I am disappointed that, after working for more than a decade to restore transparency and fairness to the process of considering judicial nominations, we see the Senate Republicans again using obstruction to block progress at filling judicial vacancies. I wish that the Republican Senators who came to the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 and decried what they characterized as a broken judicial confirmation process would acknowledge the 100 confirmations in 17 months that we accomplished in 2001 and 2002 when President Bush was not consulting closely with home State Senators and, instead, insisted on sending the Senate ideological nominees. I have done my part to fix and to improve the process. By contrast, those Republicans who deemed filibusters unconstitutional and demanded up-or-down votes for every judicial nominee just a few years ago have now filibustered nine of President Obama's judicial nominees. What happened to their principle that a partisan minority should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the majority? They used to say that judicial nominees ``should not be required to serve an indefinite period of time in the stocks as targets for these special interest groups that attack them on a regular basis.'' Now these same Republican Senators obstruct votes on qualified, consensus nominees and allow reputations to be savaged without good cause. In 2005, the so-called Gang of 14 adopted a standard for filibusters that require ``exceptional circumstances.'' That standard was abandoned by Republicans who filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan last year. The Washington Times' banner headline on December 7, 2011, noted what had long been apparent to me: ``GOP Ends Truce on Judicial Hopefuls.'' It is wrong to dismiss the delays resulting from the Senate Republicans' obstruction as merely political tit for tat. These are new and damaging tactics that Senate Republicans have devised. The standard had been that noncontroversial judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee were confirmed by the Senate before the end of the year. That is the standard we should have followed in 2010 and 2011, but Senate Republicans did not. Senate Republicans set a new and destructive standard to hold up qualified, consensus judicial nominees for no good reason. A New York Times editorial from January 4, 2011, refers to Senate Republicans' ``refusal to give prompt consideration to noncontroversial nominees'' a ``terrible precedent.'' In a column last week, the president of the American Bar Association reiterated the call for a ``sustained, concerted and bipartisan effort'' to ``make meaningful progress toward filling vacancies on the federal bench. While consensus judicial nominations are stalled without a final vote by the Senate, millions of Americans across the country are being harmed by delays. The American people and our Federal courts cannot afford these unnecessary and damaging delays. As the ABA president noted last week: Backlogs mean justice delayed in cases involving protection of individual rights, advancement of business interests, compensation of injured victims and enforcement of federal laws. Longstanding vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access to the courts. They create strains that, if not eased, threaten to reduce the quality of our justice system. They erode confidence in the courts' ability to uphold constitutional rights and render fair and timely decisions. Delay at the federal courts puts people's lives on hold while they wait for their cases to be resolved. Businesses face uncertainty and costly holdups, preventing them from investing and creating jobs. In sum, judicial vacancies kill jobs. Justice delayed, as the famous maxim goes, is justice denied. It's bad for business, it's unfair to individuals, and it slows government enforcement actions, which ultimately costs taxpayers money. The Senate remains far behind where we should be in considering President Obama's judicial nominations. The Senate had confirmed a lower percentage of President Obama's judicial nominees than those of any President in the last 35 years. The Senate has confirmed just over 70 percent of President Obama's circuit and district nominees, with more than one in four not confirmed. In stark contrast, the Senate confirmed nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees, nearly 9 out of every 10 nominees he sent to the Senate over two terms. The Senate remains well behind the pace set during President Bush's first term. By the end of President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 205 district and circuit nominees. To date now in the fourth year of President Obama's first term, the Senate has confirmed only 129 district and circuit nominees. By this date in 2004, the Senate had confirmed 170 district and circuit nominees. Today the total is more than 40 confirmations shy of the mark. Another way to think about this is that during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed the 130th nominee to our circuit and district courts in early June of his third year in office. Here we are, approaching the spring of President Obama's fourth year, nearly 9 months later, and we are just reaching that milestone--9 months later. It has taken us far too long to reach this point. That is why the judicial vacancy rate remains nearly double what it was at this point in the Bush administration. Today we can finally confirm these two highly qualified, consensus nominees. Mary Elizabeth Phillips has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Ms. Phillips is the first woman to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri. Her nomination has the bipartisan support of both of her home State Senators, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill and Republican Senator Roy Blunt. Ms. Phillips previously worked in private practice and as a local prosecutor Jackson County, MO. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S District Court, its highest possible rating. Thomas Owen Rice has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Currently the first assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Washington, Mr. Rice has spent his entire career in public service as a Federal prosecutor, including as chief of the Criminal Division in the Eastern District of Washington. Both of Washington's Senators Senators Murray and Cantwell--support Mr. Rice's nomination. Both of these nominations were reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent nearly 5 months ago in October 2011. I thank the majority leader for his efforts to break through the Republicans' obstructionist tactics. Last Tuesday, several other Democratic Senators also came before the Senate to talk about the need for more action to fill the judicial vacancies that have remained historically high for far too long. I thank Senators Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein, Coons, Cardin, and Klobuchar for their involvement and their thoughtful statements. Last Thursday, we had a discussion before the Judiciary Committee, as well. I commended Senator Coburn for the statement he made at that time in which he called upon Senators to step back and return to the practice of moving forward on consensus nominees and that we need to build bridges instead of burn them. It is important that we confirm these two nominees so they can serve the people of Missouri and Washington, but we need to do much more. The Senate needs to proceed without delay to consider all 20 of the judicial nominees currently before it and to promptly consider those being sent to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee. That is how we can fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. That is how we can begin to restore the American's people's confidence in this institution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley to introduce the Drug Free Communities Reauthorization Act of 2012, a bill to reauthorize the successful Drug Free Communities Program. It is crucial that communities around the country have the support and resources needed to respond to serious drug problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Drug Free Community, DFC, coalitions have been proven to significantly lower substance abuse rates in our communities nationwide. The DFC program encourages local citizens to become directly involved in solving their community's drug issues through grassroots organizing and data-driven approaches. Since the program's inception, DFC grants, which must be matched dollar for dollar, have helped to fund nearly 2,000 coalitions and have mobilized nearly 9,000 community volunteers. Today's legislation will reauthorize the DFC Program for an additional 5 years, at a reduced rate to reflect current fiscal realities. The community coalition model has proven extremely effective and has achieved impressive outcomes. It is critical that today's bill become law. The DFC Program strategically invests Federal anti-drug resources at the community level with those who have the most power to reduce the demand for drugs--parents, teachers, business leaders, local media, religious leaders, law enforcement, youth, and others in the community. Grantees execute collaborative strategies to address their communities' unique substance use and abuse issues. This is the optimal way to ensure that the entire community benefits from prevention. I have consistently supported funding for these coalitions, and was pleased that last year, eight Vermont coalitions were awarded Drug Free Community grants totaling $946,852. In Vermont, we have felt the presence of drug abuse and drug-related crime in our communities, and prescription drug abuse is on the rise. The myth persists that drug abuse and drug-related crime are only big- city problems, but rural America is also coping with these issues. I have brought the Judiciary Committee to Vermont several times to examine these problems and gain perspectives to help shape solutions. One thing is clear. Law enforcement, while crucial, cannot solve the problem on its own. Reducing substance abuse requires a comprehensive approach with equal attention to law enforcement, prevention and education, and treatment, all with active community buy-in. We see significant results in the fight against youth drug abuse when we have people working together at the local, State, and Federal levels, and in the law enforcement, prevention, and treatment fields. We have seen success driven by DFC coalitions in Vermont and throughout the country, but there is more work to be done. Drug abuse and drug- related crime is a persistent problem in major metropolitan areas and rural communities alike. I hope all Senators will support this bipartisan bill so that communities nationwide can sustain effective community coalitions to reduce youth drug use. 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 join with Senator Grassley to introduce the Drug Free Communities Reauthorization Act of 2012, a bill to reauthorize the successful Drug Free Communities Program. It is crucial that communities around the country have the support and resources needed to respond to serious drug problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Drug Free Community, DFC, coalitions have been proven to significantly lower substance abuse rates in our communities nationwide. The DFC program encourages local citizens to become directly involved in solving their community's drug issues through grassroots organizing and data-driven approaches. Since the program's inception, DFC grants, which must be matched dollar for dollar, have helped to fund nearly 2,000 coalitions and have mobilized nearly 9,000 community volunteers. Today's legislation will reauthorize the DFC Program for an additional 5 years, at a reduced rate to reflect current fiscal realities. The community coalition model has proven extremely effective and has achieved impressive outcomes. It is critical that today's bill become law. The DFC Program strategically invests Federal anti-drug resources at the community level with those who have the most power to reduce the demand for drugs--parents, teachers, business leaders, local media, religious leaders, law enforcement, youth, and others in the community. Grantees execute collaborative strategies to address their communities' unique substance use and abuse issues. This is the optimal way to ensure that the entire community benefits from prevention. I have consistently supported funding for these coalitions, and was pleased that last year, eight Vermont coalitions were awarded Drug Free Community grants totaling $946,852. In Vermont, we have felt the presence of drug abuse and drug-related crime in our communities, and prescription drug abuse is on the rise. The myth persists that drug abuse and drug-related crime are only big- city problems, but rural America is also coping with these issues. I have brought the Judiciary Committee to Vermont several times to examine these problems and gain perspectives to help shape solutions. One thing is clear. Law enforcement, while crucial, cannot solve the problem on its own. Reducing substance abuse requires a comprehensive approach with equal attention to law enforcement, prevention and education, and treatment, all with active community buy-in. We see significant results in the fight against youth drug abuse when we have people working together at the local, State, and Federal levels, and in the law enforcement, prevention, and treatment fields. We have seen success driven by DFC coalitions in Vermont and throughout the country, but there is more work to be done. Drug abuse and drug- related crime is a persistent problem in major metropolitan areas and rural communities alike. I hope all Senators will support this bipartisan bill so that communities nationwide can sustain effective community coalitions to reduce youth drug use. 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 that the Senate will act today to combat the increasing problem of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. I thank Senators Grassley and Bennet, and the other cosponsors, along with the bipartisan sponsors of the House companion bill. This is important legislation to deter the influx of counterfeit medication. The bill will not only support the American economy and job creation by protecting American intellectual property, but it will protect the health and safety of American consumers. The illegal counterfeit pharmaceutical trade is a multi-billion dollar criminal industry. The Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies wrote in support of this legislation that ``criminals are drawn to counterfeit drugs because of the significantly higher profits in comparison to the very low risks and penalties.'' We cannot allow the counterfeiting of life-saving medicine to be just one more low-risk venture from which international organized criminals can profit. The Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act raises the maximum sentences for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical products and requires the United States Sentencing Commission to consider amending its guidelines to account for the harm to the public and need for an effective deterrent. We should not expect that enactment of this or any legislation will completely deter the serious problem of counterfeit medication entering the American supply chain, but it is an important step in the fight. Passage of this legislation today by the Senate is also evidence that Congress can work together in a bipartisan manner to protect American consumers and promote American industries. I urge the House of Representatives to act quickly on this legislation and send it to the President's desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The Senate is considering a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize critical infrastructure investments and that will protect an estimated 1.8 million jobs if enacted before the end of this month. Unfortunately, in order to move forward on this important legislation, my friends on the other side of the aisle have demanded that we first consider an amendment entirely unrelated to transportation or even job creation. We have now spent the past 2 days considering a Republican amendment that would roll back access to health care for millions of Americans. Access to health care for women has come under attack in recent weeks after the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would follow the recommendations of the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine and require that under the Affordable Care Act, health plans must cover a range of preventative services for women, including contraception. This is not a novel solution. Twenty-eight States, including Vermont, already require such coverage. The new rule will also include no-cost preventative coverage of a range of services for women including mammograms, prenatal screenings, cervical cancer screenings, flu shots, and much more. Some religious institutions were apprehensive about the policy and, in response, the Obama administration made further accommodations to address these concerns. The new policy strikes a reasonable balance and is a solution that continues to recognize the obvious truth that women have a right to affordable and comprehensive health care, just as men do. One thing we all should agree on is that availability of birth control has improved women's health and reduced the number of teen pregnancies and the rates of abortion. This should be applauded. Unfortunately, this compromise did not satisfy some who insist on politicizing women's health. At a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing a few weeks ago, a thoughtful Georgetown law student was prevented from testifying about her experiences because she was deemed not ``appropriate and qualified'' to testify at the hearing by its Republican chairman. Not surprisingly, the all-male panel failed to raise any first-hand concern about women's health care needs. Rather than demonizing women who speak out on behalf of the millions who use contraception, we should be having a principled debate about access to health care. Last year, Congress nearly shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood and other title X providers. States have recently followed suit by passing laws limiting women's access to health care services. Our focus should be on improving access to quality and affordable health care for all Americans, not arbitrarily restricting important services needed by millions of women. The Republican amendment marks just the latest overreach and intrusion into women's health care. While this debate began as one focused on access to birth control, the amendment has a far greater reach and jeopardizes virtually any health care service that an employer or insurance plan deems contrary to its undefined ``moral conviction''--whether the employer is a religious institution or not. For example, any plan or insurer could deny coverage of vaccinations or HIV/AIDS treatment based on a moral or religious objection. The pending amendment would allow any employer or insurer to refuse contraceptive coverage, annual well-women visits, gestational diabetes screening, and domestic violence screenings. This amendment could allow an insurance provider to refuse coverage of health care services to an interracial couple or single mom because of a religious or moral objection. At the core of the Affordable Care Act was the principle that all Americans, regardless of health history or gender, have the right to access health care services. This amendment turns that belief around and would take decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors and place them with businesses and insurance plans. This serves only to put businesses and insurance companies in the driver's seat, allowing them to capriciously deny women coverage of health care services. The amendment is a direct attack on women's health that would have public health consequences for all Americans. Today marks the first day of Women's History Month. Instead of considering legislation that might promote women's equality such as the Paycheck Fairness Act or the Fair Pay Act, we are being forced to vote on the amendment that undermines the ability of women to access basic health care. I will vote today in favor of the health of women and against the proposed amendment. I urge my fellow Senators to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kohl and have long supported the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. We were able to pass this NOPEC bill as a response to the OPEC oil cartel by a vote of 70 to 23 a few years ago. The Senate should pass it again. This time, the House should also adopt this sensible application of our antitrust laws to those who fix prices and manipulate the oil market to the detriment of American consumers. We should be doing what we can to ensure that oil prices are not artificially inflated. That affects gas prices at the pump. This NOPEC amendment will hold accountable the collusive behavior that artificially reduces supply and increases the price of fuel. The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct impact on American consumers and our economy. We should increase accountability and take away the profits of those who manipulate prices and supply to their benefit and unfairly prey upon consumers. On Monday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that prices for regular gas rose 13 cents per gallon last week to a nationwide average of $3.78. Gasoline pump prices are up 34 cents a gallon over last year. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the skyrocketing price of oil in May 2008, but these recent increases in price have led to renewed calls for investigation into their causes. We already know one significant cause: anticompetitive conduct by oil cartels. The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us. Fuel prices are on the rise and American consumers and businesses are feeling the pain at the pump. This week Vermonters are paying $ 3.79 for a gallon of regular gasoline; last week, Vermonters were paying $3.70--a price jump of 9 cents in just 1 week. In 2011, the price for certain fuels rose by as much as one-third from 2010, according to the Vermont Department of Public Service. These prices affect everyone. These high fuel prices hit Vermonters especially hard in even the most mild of winters. In rural States such as Vermont, the cost of simply getting to work or to the grocery store because of high gas prices can further hurt already strapped household incomes. Vermont farmers shoulder the burden of surging fuel prices year-round, regardless of the season. Higher fuel prices can add thousands of dollars in yearly costs to a 100-head dairy operation in the Northeast. As we head into the summer months, when gas prices typically increase, soaring prices at the pump can affect the tourism industry, an economic driver in vacation destinations such as Vermont. As our summer months approach, many families in and around Vermont are going to find that OPEC has put an expensive crimp in their plans. Some are likely to stay home, others will pay more to drive or to fly so that they can visit their families or take their well-deserved vacations. American consumers should not be held as economic hostages to the whim of those who collude unfairly for their gain. We should not permit anyone to manipulate oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. The collusive behavior of certain oil producing nations has artificially and drastically reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. Put simply, the behavior of these oil cartels, which would be illegal under antitrust laws, harms American consumers and businesses and our recovering economy. Authorizing action against illegal oil price fixing and taking that action without delay is one thing we can do without additional obstruction or delay. Our amendment would allow the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels. This bill will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and artificially limiting the amount of available oil. While OPEC actions remain sheltered from antitrust enforcement, the ability of the governments involved to wreak havoc on the American economy remains unchecked. Our antitrust laws have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be subject to them. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. In the past, our NOPEC legislation has had bipartisan support. A few years ago it passed overwhelmingly. By passing this legislation, we can say no to OPEC. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that the order is such that the vote will be at 5:30?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be at 5:30.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, certainly if the ranking member comes to the floor and wishes to change that, I would not object. Earlier this month the Senate finally ended a four-month and two-day filibuster of the confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan and he is now the first Cuban-American to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. We also finally ended the five-month filibuster of the nomination of Jesse Furman, a former counselor to Attorney General Mukasey, and he is now a confirmed Federal trial judge in the Southern District of New York. The Majority Leader should not have had to file cloture petitions for the Senate to vote on these outstanding judicial nominations. Senate Republicans have filibustered nine of President Obama's judicial nominations despite the fact that he has reached out to both Republican and Democratic home state Senators and nominated qualified, ideologically moderate men and women to fill vacancies on our Federal courts. Before I turn to the nomination of Margo Brodie, another nomination that should have been confirmed last year after being reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in October, I want to spend a moment reflecting on Senate Republicans' treatment of Jesse Furman. Judge Furman was a Federal prosecutor who also served as a top legal advisor to Attorney General Michael Mukasey during the George W. Bush administration. He was involved with the prosecutions of the Times Square bomber, the infamous Russian spies, and a Pakistani scientist with ties to Al Qaeda whose actions were responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He has impeccable credentials including having clerked for Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. Based on his superior qualifications and bipartisan support, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported his nomination last September unanimously, without a single Republican Senator dissenting. His nomination, like so many others, was then subjected to obstruction and delay. From the start of his term, Republican Senators have applied a double standard to President Obama's nominees. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference to home state Senators on district court nominees. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama's highly-qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction. That approach is a serious break from the Senate's practice of advice and consent. Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Of these 2,100 nominees, only six have been reported by party-line votes-- only six total in the last 65 years. Five of those six party-line votes have been by Republican Senators against President Obama's highly- qualified district court nominees. In fact, only 22 of those 2,100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split roll call vote at all, and eight of those, more than a third, have been by Republican Senators choosing to oppose President Obama's nominees. President Obama's nominees are being treated differently than those of any President, Democratic or Republican, before him. Despite his qualifications and bipartisan supporters, Jesse Furman's nomination was stalled for more than five months by Senate Republicans. When the Majority Leader was able to break through and schedule debate and a vote, I saw something else I have not seen until recently. Republican Senators who had supported the nomination after studying it for months when it was before the Judiciary Committee for a hearing and vote, flipped and changed their votes. In total, 34 Republican Senators voted against this highly-qualified nominee. I am at a loss as to why. It appears that Senators decided to ignore Jesse Furman's record and be swayed by mischaracterizations of a brief he had written in a religious freedom case or by something he wrote as an 18-year old freshman in college. I urge Senators, as I have for years, not to listen to the extreme special interests but to make their own judgments. I suspect that in this case it was the last-minute campaign by narrow special interests groups that accounted for the number of negative votes. Today the Senate will vote on the confirmation of another highly- qualified, consensus nominee to the Federal bench. Margo Brodie has practiced law for 20 years including working as a Federal prosecutor in Brooklyn for the last 12. She has risen from the ranks of Assistant U.S. Attorney to Deputy Chief of General Crimes to Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. Ms. Brodie has successfully prosecuted numerous cases on matters ranging from violent crimes and drug offenses to white collar crimes. She has also led public corruption cases, successfully prosecuting criminals who embezzled funds and tried to bribe government agencies in her home state of New York. Ms. Brodie has the support of both her home state Senators and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 6, 2011, without a single dissent. She has demonstrated her commitment to the rule of law, her legal abilities and knowledge of the law. It is past time for the Senate to confirm this outstanding African-American woman to the Federal bench. Margo Brodie is one of 20 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee still awaiting a final vote. Fifteen of these nominations have been pending since last year and should have been confirmed before the end of last year. Eighteen of these nominees received strong bipartisan support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. These nominees should be confirmed without further delay. Now in the fourth year of President Obama's first term, the number of judicial vacancies remains at 85. That is nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush's administration. One hundred and thirty million Americans live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could be filled if Senate Republicans would vote on judicial nominees that have already been voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and are stalled awaiting final Senate consideration. The Senate is more than 40 confirmations behind the pace we set confirming President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 through 2004. For the second year in a row, the Senate Republican leadership ignored long-established precedent and refused to allow votes before the December recess on the nearly 20 consensus judicial nominees who had been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. Ultimately, it is the American people who pay the price for Senate Republican's unnecessary and harmful delay in confirming judges to our Federal courts. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who are seeking their day in court to find seats on one in 10 of those courts vacant. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait for years before a judge hears his or her case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to stop the destructive delays that have plagued our nominations process. I urge them to stop the slow- walking of highly-qualified, consensus nominees. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Chung, a Department of Justice detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be given Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 112th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the filibuster has been dropped on this very good man. This nomination has taken months to get here. I would urge everybody to vote for it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for pressing forward to obtain a vote on the nomination of Jesse Furman, finally bringing to an end the 5-month Republican filibuster of this nomination. It should not have taken five months and the filing of a cloture petition to secure a vote on this superbly qualified, consensus nominee. When the Judiciary Committee voted on this nomination last September, it had the support of every Democrat and ever Republican on the Committee. Yesterday, I spoke, again, of the dangers posed by this Republican filibuster of a consensus Federal district court nominee. I am glad Senate Republicans have backed away from their misguided effort. The extended delay in considering the Furman nomination has not only been damaging to the Federal District Court of New York, but also to the people it serves. This has also led to some extreme groups on the far right making scurrilous attacks on the reputation of this good man. I trust that no Senator will credit the mischaracterizations of Mr. Furman's record. His role in filing an amicus brief in a First Amendment case in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League when he was in private practice has been misquoted and mischaracterized to the point where you have to wonder if it is intentional. Of course, no lawyer should be disqualified from being a judge for advocating on behalf of client. Were the Senate to go down that road, we would disqualify many outstanding lawyers capable of being excellent judges. Senate Republicans filibustered Judge Jack McConnell of Rhode Island because he represented parents and children exposed to health risks by lead in paint. That error should not be repeated. I am glad the Senate is finally voting on this nomination. With 21 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee awaiting a final vote, with one out of every 10 Federal judgeships vacant throughout the country, and with the Senate still more than 40 confirmations behind the pace we set with President Bush, the Senate cannot afford this continuing obstruction and delay of judicial confirmations. This filibuster, like the filibuster of Judge Adalberto Jordan that we finally ended earlier this week and others, bring derision upon the Senate, are a colossal waste of the time, and harm our Federal courts and the American people seeking justice. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to abandon the damaging tactics that led to this unnecessary 5-month filibuster of the Furman nomination, the shameful 4-month and 2-day filibuster of the Jordan nomination, and to abandon their continued stalling of 20 additional judicial nominees ready for final consideration and confirmation. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to join with us to restore the Senate's longstanding practice of considering and confirming consensus nominees without extended delays. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress has taken an important step today to address the looming spectrum crunch that our country faces as well as provide first responders with the nationwide network that they undoubtedly need. From cell phones to WiFi to broadcast television and radio, spectrum fuels some of the most critical technologies of the modern age. Empowering the Federal Communications Commission to conduct voluntary auctions in order to recover potentially underutilized spectrum will ensure that the public airwaves are being put to the best possible use. I am particularly pleased to see that this provision contains language that will protect broadcast television stations along the Canadian border. A potential consequence of the spectrum auctions that Congress has been considering is that the Federal Communications Commission may need to ``repack'' or move certain television stations to new channels to appropriately free up spectrum. This type of repacking occurred following the transition to digital television and put some broadcast stations in Vermont in the position of having to reduce power to avoid interference with Canadian broadcast signals. Further repacking without appropriate protection could have serious consequences for stations in Vermont and elsewhere along the border. The language in the bill Congress has passed today makes sure that repacking along our borders is subject to international coordination with Canada and Mexico. In January, I joined with the other members of Vermont's Congressional delegation in sending a letter to Secretary of State Clinton requesting that the State Department explore a new spectrum coordination agreement with Canada. As Congress moves forward today with approving spectrum auctions, I once again call for a new agreement that will ensure adequate spectrum exists for repacking in Vermont and elsewhere along the border. Broadcast television is critically important to communities across this country, and the steps Congress has taken today will make sure that residents relying on this free service do not see significant disruptions due to a lack of international coordination. The voluntary spectrum auctions that Congress has approved today are an important step in freeing up the airwaves for new and innovative uses. The auction provision also ensures that public safety will finally have a nationwide broadband network at its disposal, which was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am pleased that stakeholders came together to craft a compromise that will help to spur innovation, improve public safety, and preserve access to the free, over-the-air television that is so important our communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. This is the kind of obstruction that is hard to explain to the American people. This Republican filibuster, like that of Judge Jordan, is very hard to understand. Jesse Furman is an experienced Federal prosecutor who has prosecuted international narcotics trafficking and terrorism and consulted on some of the Southern District's most complex cases, including the Galleon insider trading case, the prosecution of former Madoff employees, and the Times Square bomber case. A dedicated public servant, Mr. Furman has been a law clerk at all three levels of the Federal judiciary, including as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice David Souter. I got to know Mr. Furman when he was the counselor to Attorney General Michael Mukasey. That is right: The Senate Republicans are filibustering someone strongly supported by President Bush's Attorney General who was himself a Federal judge. When Mr. Furman's nomination was before the Committee last summer, Attorney General Mukasey wrote to the Committee in strong support: All I can hope to add is my own belief that he is a person to whom one can entrust decisions that are consequential to the lives of people and to the general welfare of the populace, with confidence that they will be made wisely and fairly . . . and I urge that he be confirmed. Former Supreme Court clerks who served at the same time as Mr. Furman, including clerks for conservative Justices such as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia wrote in support of Mr. Furman's nomination, stating that, ``Mr. Furman has demonstrated his deep respect for and commitment to the rule of law, over and above politics or ideology.'' With this bipartisan support, the strong support of his home state Senators, and his impressive background, Mr. Furman's nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 15, without opposition from a single member of the Committee. We should have voted on his nomination many months ago, and certainly before the end of the last session. Senate Republicans have blocked this nomination for over five months without any explanation. Sadly, this is not the first New York judge to be filibustered by Senate Republicans. Just a few years ago, Judge Denny Chin, an outstanding nominee with 16 years of judicial experience, was delayed from being elevated to the Second Circuit for four months until the Majority Leader forced a vote and he was confirmed 98 0. Last May, the Majority Leader was required to file for cloture to end the filibuster of Judge Jack McConnell of Rhode Island. By rejecting that filibuster, the Senate took a step toward restoring a longstanding tradition of deference to home state Senators with regard to Federal District Court nominations. The Senate turned away from a precipice. It is wrong now for us to approach that precipice again. Filibustering this nomination would set a new standard for obstruction of judicial nominations. Indeed, I have looked back over the last six decades and found only four district court nominations--four in over 60 years, on which cloture was even filed. For two of those, the cloture petitions were withdrawn after procedural issues were resolved. In connection with the other two, the Senate voted on cloture and it was invoked and the filibuster ended. All of those nominations were confirmed. From the start of President Obama's term, Republican Senators have applied a heightened and unfair standard to President Obama's district court nominees. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference on district court nominees to the home state Senators who know the needs of their states best. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama's highly-qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction. That approach is a serious break from the Senate's practice of advice and consent. Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2,100 district court nominees to the Senate. Out of these 2,100 nominees, only six have been reported by party-line votes. Only six total in the last 65 years. Five of those six party-line votes have been against President Obama's highly-qualified district court nominees. Indeed, only 22 of those 2,100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split roll call vote at all, and eight of those, more than a third, have been President Obama's nominees. Democrats never applied this standard to President Bush's district court nominees, whether in the majority or the minority. And certainly, there were nominees to the district court put forth by that administration that were considered ideologues. All told, in eight years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district court nomination by a party line vote. President Obama's nominees are being treated differently than those of any President, Democratic or Republican, before him. When I first became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, I followed a time when Senate Republicans, who had been in the majority, had pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, blocking them with secret holds in backrooms and cloakrooms, obstructing more with winks and nods, but with little to no public explanation or accountability. I worked hard to change that and to open up the process. I sought to bring daylight to the process by making the consultation with home state Senators public so that the Senate Republicans' abuses during the Clinton years would not be repeated. When Senate Democrats opposed some of President Bush's most ideological nominees, we did so openly, saying why we opposed them. And when there were consensus nominees--nominees with the support of both Democrats and Republicans--we moved them quickly so they could begin serving the American people. That is how we reduced vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades. That is how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's circuit and district nominees in his first term. Now we see the reverse of how we treated President Bush's nominees. Senate Republicans do not move quickly to consider consensus nominees, like the 14 still on the Senate Calendar that were reported unanimously last year and should have had a Senate vote last year. Instead, as we are seeing today and have seen all too often, Senate Republicans obstruct and delay even consensus nominees, leaving us 43 judicial nominees behind the pace we set for confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. That is why vacancies remain so high, at 86, over three years into President Obama's first term. Vacancies are nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush's third year. That is why 130 million Americans live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could have a judge if Senate Republicans would only consent to vote on judicial nominees that have been favorably voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate Executive Calendar since last year. This is an area where we should be working for the American people, and putting their needs first. It is the American people who pay the price for the Senate's unnecessary and harmful delay in confirming judges to our Federal courts. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who are seeking their day in court to find seats on one in 10 of those courts vacant. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait for years before a judge hears his or her case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. With over 20 judicial nominees favorably reported by the Committee and cloture motions being required for consensus nominees, the Senate is failing in its responsibility, harming our Federal courts and ultimately hurting the American people. Is it any wonder that barely 10 percent of the American people view Congress favorably? The slow pace of confirmations of President Obama's judicial nominees is no accident or happenstance. It is the result of deliberate obstruction and delays. For the second year in a row, the Senate Republican leadership ignored long-established precedent and refused to schedule any votes before the December recess on the nearly 20 consensus judicial nominees who had been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. Here we are in the middle of February fighting to hold a vote on one of the 18 nominees who should have been confirmed last year. Fourteen of the nominees being blockaded by Senate Republicans were reported with the unanimous support of their home state Senators and every Republican and every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The result of these Republican delay tactics is clear--we are far behind the pace set by the Senate during President George W. Bush's first term, with a judicial vacancy rate nearly twice what it was at this point in his first term. During President George W. Bush's administration, Republican Senators insisted that filibusters of judicial nominees were unconstitutional. They threatened the ``nuclear option'' in 2005 to guarantee up-or-down votes for each of President Bush's judicial nominees. Many Republican Senators declared that they would never support the filibuster of a judicial nomination--never. Yet, only a few years later, Senate Republicans reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench who had the support of the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator Lugar. The Senate rejected that filibuster and Judge Hamilton was confirmed. But the partisan delays and opposition have continued. Senate Republicans have required cloture votes even for nominees who ended up being confirmed unanimously when the Senate finally overcame those filibusters and voted on their nomination. So it was with Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit, who was confirmed 99 0 when the filibuster of her nomination finally ended in 2010, and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit, an outstanding nominee with 16 years judicial experience, who was ultimately confirmed 98 0 when the Republican filibuster was overcome after four months of needless delays. Just this week the long-delayed nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan to the Eleventh Circuit was confirmed 94 5. This obstruction is particularly damaging at a time when judicial vacancies remain at record highs. There are currently 86 judicial vacancies across the country, meaning that nearly one out of every 10 Federal judgeships remains vacant. The vacancy rate is nearly double what it had been reduced to by this point in the Bush administration, when we worked together to reduce judicial vacancies to 46. Some Senate Republicans are now seeking to excuse these months of delay by blaming President Obama for forcing them to do it. They point to President Obama's recent recess appointments of a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and members of the National Labor Relations Board. Of course, those appointments were made a few weeks ago, long after Judge Jordan's nomination was already being delayed. Moreover, the President took his action because Senate Republicans had refused to vote on those executive nominations and were intent on rendering the Government agencies unable to enforce the law and carry out their critical work on behalf of the American people. Some Senate Republicans are doubling down on their obstruction in response. They are apparently extending their blockage against nominees beyond executive branch nominees to these much-needed judicial nominees. This needless obstruction accentuates the burdens on our Federal courts and delays in justice to the American people. We can ill afford these additional delays and protest votes. The Senate needs, instead, to come together to address the needs of hardworking Americans around the country. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to stop the destructive delays that have plagued our nominations process. I urge them to join us not only in rejecting the five-month filibuster of Mr. Furman's nomination, but also in restoring the Senate's longstanding practice of considering and confining consensus nominees without extended and damaging delays. The American people deserve no less. Exhibit 1 Congress Has No Date for the Prom (By Gail Collins) I am shocked to report that Congress, the beating heart of American democracy, is unpopular. Not unpopular like a shy kid in junior high. Unpopular like the Ebola virus, or zombies. Held in near-universal contempt, like TV shows about hoarders with dead cats in their kitchens. Or people who get students to call you up during dinner and ask you to give money to your old university. The latest Gallup poll gave Congress a 10 percent approval rating. As Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado keeps pointing out, that's lower than BP during the oil spill, Nixon during Watergate or banks during the banking crisis. On the plus side, while 86 percent of respondents told Gallup that they disapproved of the job Congress was doing, only 4 percent said they had no opinion. That's really a great sense of public awareness, given the fact that other surveys show less than half of all Americans know who their member of Congress is. So little attention, yet so much rancor. We're presuming that this is because of the dreaded partisan gridlock, which has made Congress increasingly unproductive in matters that do not involve the naming of post offices. And Congress is listening! Lately, we have been seeing heartening new signs of bipartisan cooperation. For instance, the House and Senate are near an agreement on the payroll tax cut, namely that it will continue and not be paid for. This is actually sort of a tradition. No matter who is in power in Washington, Congress has always shown a remarkable ability to band together and pass tax cuts that are not paid for. It's like naming post offices, only somewhat more expensive. But there's much, much more. For instance, both chambers recently approved a big new ethics reform bill that would ban members of Congress from engaging in insider trading. Perhaps you imagined that this was already against the law. This piece of legislation had been lying around gathering dust since 2006. But, this year, the House and Senate decided to stand tall and pass it as a matter of principle. It had nothing to do with a ``60 Minutes'' report that made the whole place look like a convention of grifters. Totally unrelated. This was simply a bill whose time had come. And that bill would probably already be signed into law were it not for a disagreement over whether to require the high-paid professionals who poke around Congress collecting information that might be of use to their Wall Street clients to register the same way lobbyists do. You'd think this would be easy to sort out since most members of the House and the Senate have gone on the record in favor of registering these guys. But, no, the idea ran afoul of the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, the Darth Vader of Capitol Hill. Cantor says the idea should be studied, which is, of course, legislatese for ``trampled to death by a thousand boots.'' Still, the good news is that the basic idea of prohibiting members of Congress from using the information they acquire in the course of their public duties to engage in insider trading did pass both chambers by enormous majorities. Yippee. And the bipartisan cooperation keeps rolling on. This week, the Senate confirmed Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan to a seat on the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. A visitor from another country might not have appreciated the proportions of this achievement, given the fact that Jordan, who was born in Cuba and who once clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor, had no discernible opposition. But Americans ought to have a better grasp of how the Senate works. The nomination's progress had long been thwarted by Mike Lee, a freshman Republican from Utah, who has decided to hold up every single White House appointment to anything out of pique over . . . well, it doesn't really matter. When you're a senator, you get to do that kind of thing. This forced the majority leader, Harry Reid, to get 60 votes to move Judge Jordan forward, which is never all that easy. Then there was further delay thanks to Rand Paul, a freshman from Kentucky, who stopped action for as long as possible because he was disturbed about foreign aid to Egypt. All that is forgotten now. The nomination was approved, 94 to 5, only 125 days after it was unanimously O.K.'d by the Judiciary Committee. Whiners in the White House pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, circuit court nominations got to a floor vote in an average of 28 days. No matter. Good work, Senate! Only 17 more long-pending judicial nominations to go! Meanwhile, the House named a post office in Missouri for a fallen Marine.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.