Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Mueller nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Mueller nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains until the vote on the Mueller nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I hope all Senators will step forward and vote for this nomination. I can think of no reason why they should not. Director Mueller is typical of many in our government who serve the people of America tirelessly, without any gain to themselves but instead for what is best for all Americans and for our country. Director Mueller has worked--along with the thousands of individuals at the Department of Justice and the FBI who work around the clock every day to keep America safe to protect us from crime and to protect us from terrorists. Unfortunately some people try to lump together and deride government employees. The fact is the people at the FBI and Department of Justice are very brave men and women, many of whom put their lives on the line for us day by day, and we ought to acknowledge that. Bob Mueller is the public face of the FBI, as its long-serving Director. Amazingly, he and Ann, his wife of many years, along with their grown children, are able to separate that their private life from the public life. Like so many who serve this country, Director Mueller's public life takes an inordinate amount of his time, and I think it is a testament to his dedication that he was willing to do this job for another two years, but it is also important to acknowledge the sacrifice of his wife Ann and his children. I think all Americans share in the good fortune that when the President asked Director Mueller to step forward and serve for another 2 years, he answered the call. I also want to compliment President Obama. He knew he had the opportunity to name somebody who would be there as long as he, Barack Obama, may be President, whether he serves one term or two, and beyond. Instead, the President, as he has often done, did what he thought was best for the country. Director Mueller is a fine public servant, and I would urge all Senators to vote ``aye'' on this nomination. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see no one else seeking the floor, so I yield back the remainder of the time, which is now about 30 seconds.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be brief. I have been asked by a number of people how I feel about the efforts made to get the United States out of the quandary in which it now finds itself over the debt limit. Let me be very clear. I applaud President Obama and Majority Leader Reid for real leadership and persistence over many months in trying to find a bipartisan solution to the debt crisis. Senator Reid has put forward a solution that would end the current crisis and reduce our unsustainable national debt. This is a solution that has the potential to draw support from lawmakers from both parties who are willing to put common sense and the national interests above partisanship and ideology, those who would say rather than party first let's go country first now we have a framework for a solution. By repeatedly walking away from the table and insisting on their way or no way, those who are holding the American people and our economy hostage are playing ideological games with serious consequences for everyone else. Through their tactics they threaten great risk to the well-being of ordinary Americans. The longer this goes on, the greater the danger of lasting damage below the waterline of our democracy. Right now Leader Reid's $2.7 trillion debt reduction package is the best chance--really is the best chance this country has--to avoid a default and a credit rating downgrade that would damage our fragile economy. It would also impose a credit tax hike on every American family. If we downgrade our credit rating, we are going to be sending hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to other countries, money they can spend on medical research, on schools, on transportation, and alternative energy. They can spend it in their country--we will be paying the bills--and all because the Congress did not come together on a solution on this issue. Most people looking at this wonder why have we not moved. Senator Reid has a plan that can move. It says we will spend this money--the money we have--not shipping it overseas to other countries but spend it on the needs of our own country. The plan consolidates terms agreed to in the ongoing negotiations. It proposes a solution that ends the current crisis. It accomplishes wide-ranging savings, and has enough bipartisan support to pass. It would end the roller coaster of unpredictability that shackles our economy by instead offering financial stability through 2012. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid beneficiaries will be spared a loss of benefits. The American people will begin to recognize these savings from withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments for America's economic recovery and for a strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by House Republicans. The irony is Republican leaders previously had backed all of the spending reductions called for in Leader Reid's plan. I do not agree--I suspect all of us do not agree--with all aspects of this proposed solution. But we are not going to have 100 solutions on this floor, we are going to have 1 we can vote on. I wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. I want to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. I continue to believe that a surcharge for the wealthiest would mean they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that tilted far more toward the wealthiest of Americans rather than to the middle class. I find it interesting when I hear lectures from those who voted for an unnecessary war in Iraq--Iraq, a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, a country that before we invaded it had no al-Qaida but has plenty now--say we will vote for this war, and for the first time in our history we will not pay for it, we will borrow the money. We will cut taxes. And to pay for it we will borrow the money. Look where we are now. We will eventually owe $3.5 trillion for that war. You know, it is far easier--and I say this to everybody like myself-- they may see every single thing they want here--it is far easier to walk away from the negotiating table than to make the hard choices needed on behalf of the American people. We need serious statesmanship on both sides for this to work, both sides to get a solution, and both sides to do it before it is too late. The economic health of our country, the jobs of thousands of hard- working Americans, should not be mired in politics. It is well past the time--and I realize there is a House faction that is driving much of the decisions there. It is well past time for that faction in the House of Representatives to put politics aside and accept a long-term deficit reduction plan that does not force America's most vulnerable to shoulder the burden. Just as many Vermont families are forced to make difficult financial decisions, Congress has to be open to considering all available options. We do this in my State of Vermont without gimmicks. We do not have any constitutional amendment on balanced budgets or anything such as that. We just balance the budget. In that regard, I recall a Member who said: Let's have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, knowing it would be years from now. But we actually had a balanced budget during the Clinton-Gore administration. Not a single Republican voted for it. Democrats voted for it, and we balanced the budget. We created a surplus. We started paying down the national debt, and created 24 million new jobs. Let's go back to those days. Forget the sloganeering. Forget the bumper sticker solutions. If things were that easy, it would have been done long before now. Start going back to doing what we are elected to do, what we are paid to do, and also what we are expected to do. Seek a solution, not a gimmick; not a deal, a solution that benefits all Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I made a statement about the need for the Senate to consider all 27 judicial nominees reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaiting final action by the Senate. I was disappointed that the votes on Paul Engelmayer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Southern District of New York and Ramona Manglona to fill a 10-year term on the District Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which had already been stalled for 3\1/2\ months, were not considered yesterday. These are the kinds of qualified, consensus judicial nominations that in past years would have been confirmed promptly. I hope and trust that at least they will be considered and confirmed today. After their confirmations, there will be 25 judicial nominations fully considered by the Judiciary Committee awaiting final action by the Senate. Twenty of them were unanimously reported, without a single negative vote. Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies as dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for far too long. By the August recess in the third year of the Bush administration, the Senate had confirmed 143 Federal circuit and district court judges. As we approach the August recess in the third year of the Obama administration, the comparable number after confirmation of Paul Engelmayer and Ramona Manglona today will be only 91. We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations. The Senate confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, as we near the end of President Obama's 30th month in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider and confirm only 91 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. Despite the needs of the Federal judiciary, the delays in confirmation of President Obama's consensus judicial nominees continue to the detriment of the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield back 6 minutes of my time so the vote can begin at 5:30.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note the Senate observed a moment of silence for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, who were killed in the Capitol in 1998 on July 24. Both were excellent police officers--one uniformed, one plain clothes--in the protective division. My wife and I knew both John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, and we were at both of their memorial services. Both were fine officers, and I am glad we had a moment of silence. We sometimes forget that we have a lot of very good police officers, both in the uniform division and the plain clothes division, in this Capitol. They are here to protect us at all times of day or night, no matter what the weather or what the circumstances. It is something we should keep in mind. We often can go home when the session ends, but they are here to make sure everything is still safe. So we owe all of them a debt of gratitude, and I hope all of them will remain safe. It is a tragedy that Officers Gibson and Chestnut were not able to remain safe but died protecting the Capitol. Today, the Senate is finally going to vote on two judicial nominations reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in early April. Let me put that into perspective. Way back when snow was still falling in my State, every single Republican and every single Democrat voted for these two nominees. In past years they would have been confirmed probably in a voice vote that same week in a wrap-up session. For some reason, my friends on the other side think it should be different with a Democratic President than it was for a Republican President, or for that matter, all past Presidents. Despite the support of every Democrat and every Republican on the Judiciary Committee, the nominations of Paul Engelmayer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of New York, and Ramona Manglona to fill a 10-year term in the District Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, have been stalled for 3\1/2\ months on the Senate's Executive Calendar. These are the kinds of qualified, consensus judicial nominations that in past years-- whether under President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, or either of the President Bushes--would have been confirmed promptly rather than being forced to languish for months because of Republican refusal to consent to debate and vote on nominations. At a time when judicial vacancies remain above 90 throughout this country, these needless delays perpetuate the judicial vacancy crisis that Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican appointee, wrote of last December and that the President, the Attorney General, bar associations and chief judges around the country have urged us to join together to end. Imagine the example we set to litigants by saying: ``Well, we can't hear your litigation, no matter how important it is. You are going to have to wait year after year after year because we don't have a judge. We can't get one confirmed.'' The Senate can do a better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to our fellow Americans around the country. Recently, Chief Judge Moreno of the Southern District of Florida wrote to the Senate leaders urging that they expedite action on two nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies in that district. Both Kathleen Williams and Robert Scola are among the many judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, yet both are being delayed for no good reason. Chief Judge Moreno writes: [T]he judicial shortage with three vacancies in our district is becoming acute. For this reason, I ask your assistance in expediting both confirmations. The Judiciary Committee has found the nominees qualified and the people of South Florida eagerly await their service. Both of these nominees have the support of their home State Senators--Senator Nelson, a Democrat, and Senator Rubio, a Republican. The two Senators have set aside partisan actions, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has set aside partisan actions by voting for the nominees unanimously. Why should they be held up because of partisan actions on this floor? Kathleen Williams and Robert Scola are among the 27 judicial nominees reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and reported favorably to the Senate for final action who are being stalled. I am glad that we are finally being allowed to consider the 2 nominees who will be confirmed today, but they have been waiting since early April. This is not traditional, and there are still 25 who languish. This is not how the Senate has acted in years past with other Presidents' judicial nominees. It is not accurate to pretend that real progress is being made in these circumstances. After we have these two votes, we will still have 25 nominees sitting on the calendar who could be disposed of within an hour, yet they are blocked week after week after week. That is not progress. We may be making progress in the committee, but if the nominees are blocked on the floor, it is not progress. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is the American people--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--that are being made to suffer. This is another area in which we must come together for the American people. Let us do something for the American people, and not just for our political parties. There is no reason Senators cannot join together to finally bring down the excessive number of vacancies that have persisted in our Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long. It is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an American issue. Between now and the August recess the Senate should consider all of the judicial nominees ready for a final vote, including those desperately needed in southern Florida backed by Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. I expect the two nominations we are going to consider today will be confirmed overwhelmingly. They are examples of the almost two dozen consensus nominees who are being stalled for no good reason. Mr. Engelmayer is a nominee with unassailable credentials. After receiving his undergraduate and law school degrees with honors from Harvard Law School, Mr. Engelmayer served as a law clerk to Judge Patricia Wald of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and then to Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. He worked as a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York for 9 years, where he climbed the ranks from a young lawyer to become Chief of the Major Crimes Unit. Mr. Engelmayer served for 2 years as an Assistant Solicitor General for the United States. Since 2000, he has been a partner in the law firm WilmerHale, where he practices civil and criminal litigation and regularly dedicates himself to pro bono work. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him well qualified to serve, its highest rating. He is supported by his home state Senators. Ramona Villagomez Manglona is currently an Associate Judge on the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), having previously served as a Justice Pro Tempore on the Guam Supreme Court and a Judge Pro Tempore on the Guam Superior Court. From 1998 to 2003, she worked in the CNMI Office of the Attorney General is several capacities, including a term as Attorney General. Born in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, Judge Manglona earned her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley and her J.D. from the University of New Mexico. When confirmed, Judge Manglona will be the first indigenous person to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Her confirmation should also save money and help ease the burden on judges who have had to travel to the Pacific from the mainland to provide judicial resources. I, again, thank Senator Grassley for his cooperation in working with me to make progress in the committee concerning judicial nominations in regular order. We have made progress in the committee, but it goes for naught if we cannot get nominees confirmed on the floor. Our work in the committee has not been matched in the Senate, where agreements to debate and vote on judicial nominations are too few and too far between. These are only the sixth and seventh nominations the Senate has considered in the last 2 months, at a time when vacancies have remained at or above 90, and despite the many consensus nominees that have been voted on in a bipartisan fashion by the committee and are now waiting for a vote on the Senate floor. These will be only the 13th and 14th nominees confirmed this year who had their hearings this year. The other confirmations were all from the group considered by the Judiciary Committee last year, but were renominated after having had their confirmations delayed unnecessarily last year. Ignoring the words of the Chief Justice and others concerned with the continuing high number of judicial vacancies, Senate Republicans have continued the pattern and practice of delay for virtually all judicial nominees. In addition to the 2 nominations we consider today, there are currently 25 judicial nominations that have been fully considered by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the Senate for final action. Of them, 20 were unanimously reported, by Republicans and Democrats, without a single negative vote. At the very least, we ought to take up those 20. The two nominations we consider today were reported in April. There remain 13 judicial nominations on the calendar reported favorably by the committee way back in May or earlier, 11 of which were reported unanimously. When I urged the Senate to take up and vote on the many judicial nominations that were on the calendar and ready for action before the Memorial Day recess, Republican Senators would not agree to consider a single one. With almost a score of judicial nominees available to the Senate for final action, only one was considered before the July 4 recess. That is not the way to make real progress. Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies as dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for far too long. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first two years, Senate Republicans' insistence on objections and delays have resulted in judicial vacancies still numbering more than 90 two and a half years into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have been reduced to similar levels, but we have barely kept up with attrition. In fact, the Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration given Republican objections, and the slow pace of confirmations are keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies staying near or above 90 for the last two years. The vacancy rate--which we reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--is back above 10 percent. By this time in the third year of the Bush administration, the Senate had confirmed 136 judges. That is over 40 percent more than the number of President Obama's nominees we have been allowed to process to confirmation. We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations. The Senate confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I was Chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. In the other 31 months, Republicans were able to do another 105. So again, we demonstrated we are ready to work faster with President Bush than even his Republican Senators were--and we certainly worked a lot faster than we have been able to work now. President Obama is now in his 30th month in office and we have only been allowed to consider and confirm 91 of his Federal Circuit and District Court nominees. Compare that to the 100 I did in 17 months for President Bush. The delays continue, despite the needs of the Federal judiciary, as evidenced by Chief Judge Moreno's recent letter, which I ask unanimous consent to be made part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. I would note that the delays in confirmation of President Obama's consensus nominees, nominees agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats, are to the detriment of all Americans. Most people, when they go into court, do not go in as a Republican or Democrat. They are just an American seeking justice. But the courts' doors are now being closed; closed because the Senate will not allow confirmation of the judges who could open those doors. That is wrong. It is a stain on the judiciary, and it is a stain on this body. Exhibit 1 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami, FL, July 21, 2011. Re Nominations of Kathleen Williams and Robert Scola to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Senator Mitch McConnell, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator McConnell: As Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, I urge you to expedite the Senate's confirmation of Kathleen Williams and Robert Scola to the positions of district judges in our district. I understand that the Judiciary Committee has sent both nominations by unanimous voice vote and is awaiting a vote by the full Senate. Ms. Williams, our district's Federal Public Defender, has been awaiting confirmation for the longest period of any present nominee to the district court in the entire country. State Judge Robert Scola's nomination is of a more recent vintage but the litigants are eagerly awaiting his confirmation. The judgeship Ms. Williams has been nominated to fill has been vacant for two years! At the present time, our district has three vacancies. Unfilled positions in our Court present an undue hardship on the citizens residing in the Southern District of Florida, particularly those with cases pending in the affected division of the Court. Our district is huge and heavily populated. It includes the most populous counties in Florida, Miami-Dade, Broward (where Fort Lauderdale is located) and Palm Beach Counties. The district also includes Monroe, St. Lucie, Highlands, Okeechobee, Martin, and Indian River Counties. We have been laboring under a judicial shortage for quite some time. The Judicial Conference of the United States has for the past several years annually recommended to Congress three additional permanent judgeships and to convert one temporary judgeship into a permanent one. This shortage is exacerbated by the fact that we are one of the busiest district courts in the nation. Our district had 10,556 new filings in both criminal and civil cases in 2010, an increase of 6.7% over the year 2000. The latest national statistics (FY 2010) are attached and show that our district is first in ``weighted filings'' in the Eleventh Circuit. In sum, the judicial shortage with three vacancies in our district is becoming acute. For this reason, I ask your assistance in expediting both confirmations. The Judiciary Committee has found the nominees qualified and the people of South Florida eagerly await their service. Please call me if I can provide any additional information. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Federico A. Moreno, Chief U.S. District Judge.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged to both parties.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the vote will be at 5:30; is that correct?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have a group of British parliamentarians meeting with us. I see the distinguished Republican leader on the floor. Senator Cochran and I are leading a delegation to meet with them, and I am about to ask to put the Senate in recess subject to the call of the Chair, which will only be a matter of minutes, I assure my colleagues, so we can bring them on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, now that we are back in session, I thank my fellow Members, and Senator Cochran especially, for their courtesy in letting us go into recess so that we could bring a group of very distinguished British parliamentarians on the floor. I would note for the Senate that we meet every 2 years, American Senators and British parliamentarians of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We will do it once in England, once here. Two years ago we were over there, and this year we are meeting here. Four years ago, as Senator Cochran will recall, we met in the State of Vermont. But with changes in the Senate session, we are going to meet here in the Capitol. I thank you very much for the courtesy. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unlike any Republican in the House or the Senate, I have voted for a balanced budget. We balanced the budget under President Clinton. Not only balanced the budget, started paying down the national debt. He was able to leave hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus to his successor, who determined with Republican votes to go to war in Iraq and pay for the war with a tax cut. That is why we had to borrow the money from China and Saudi Arabia. Not a single Republican voted for a real balanced budget when they had a chance to. In fact, it passed the Senate only because Vice President Gore came and broke the tie. I was proud to have voted for that balanced budget. Not a gimmick, but a real balanced budget. We had to actually make tough choices. We did it. We balanced it. We had a surplus. When we talk about amending our Nation's fundamental charter, the Constitution of the United States, it is not something Congress and the American people should feel forced to do in the face of a financial crisis. I take seriously my senatorial oath to support and defend the Constitution. I know there are a lot of pressure groups demanding that elected representatives sign pledges about what they will and will not do. The pledge I follow, which is the one I was honored to make again at the beginning of this Congress, is to uphold the Constitution. That is what I intend to do as I represent the people of Vermont. The House-passed bill, H.R. 2560, which the Senate is now considering, claims to impose a balanced budget on future Congresses, but it doesn't even contain the proposed constitutional amendment that supporters are seeking to adopt. Nor did the bill pass with two-thirds of the Republican-controlled House voting in favor. That threshold is what is required for us to pass a constitutional amendment. The House vote was more than 50 votes short of that necessary number. The process by which this bill has been brought to the floor of the Senate is an affront to the Constitution that we are sworn to protect and defend. Instead, the House still denies authority needed to meet the Nation's obligations until Congress passes a type of constitutional amendment that will actually make it more difficult for us to reduce our national debt. That kind of constitutional blackmail has no place in our democracy, no place in our laws. I wonder whether anyone who respects the Constitution can support such an approach. Here is the convoluted language the House bill includes about an amendment to our Constitution: H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. The Founders didn't include a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget or a prohibition against incurring debt in our Constitution. They knew full well that would have been foolish, dangerous, and self-defeating for the Nation they were seeking to establish. I respect the wisdom of the Founders and will uphold the Constitution, which has served this Nation so well for the last 223 years. Let's not be so vain as to think we know better than the Founders what the Constitution should prescribe. I reject the notion that for political reasons we need to rush consideration of an ill-conceived and evolving proposal for a constitutional amendment. I will stand with the Founders. I will defend their work and our Constitution, and I will oppose the proposed series of constitutional amendments, which, incidentally, haven't even had a hearing. Have we forgotten how the Revolutionary War was financed? Have we forgotten how the national government took on the debt of the states after the Revolutionary War? Have we forgotten that in 1792, just four years after the ratification of the Constitution, the budget deficit was 38 percent of revenues? Have we forgotten how President Jefferson financed the Louisiana Purchase expanding the country westward? Do we not remember what happened during the Civil War, how we emerged from the Great Depression, and won World War II? Do we not even recall that during the administration of the last Democratic President, we had balanced the budget after defeating a proposed constitutional amendment and were reducing the deficit with billions of surpluses? Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are permanent. They are not bills or resolutions that can be abandoned or fixed. They are not just a bumper sticker or a sound bite. Each word matters to hundreds of millions of Americans and future generations. I have never seen--and I have been here 37 years--the solemn duty of protecting the Constitution treated in such a cavalier manner. I wish those who so often say they revere the Constitution would show it the respect it deserves rather than treating it like a blog entry. We have already seen scores of proposed constitutional amendments on budgetary matters. None has been adopted and for good reason. The Senate amendment referenced in the House bill is one of approximately 60 proposed so far this Congress. It remains a moving target, not a finished product worthy of consideration as an addition to our fundamental charter. The House bill itself proposed three different constitutional amendments and a catchall to include some proposal not yet introduced. Last night some members claimed that this catchall somehow allows flexibility. If we are going to limit the authority on the debt ceiling by requiring a constitutional amendment, there should not be ambiguity in what the amendment would actually do to hardworking Americans. This shows the lack of seriousness with which Republicans have approached this entire matter. These partisan constitutional amendment proposals are inconsistent with the views of our Founding Fathers. George Washington did not want our Constitution to constrain the national government from being able to respond to events as warranted. He led this Nation into being and knew that financial constraints had no place in the Constitution. The Constitution expressly provides for the power ``to borrow money on the credit of the United States'' and for Congress ``to lay and collect taxes'' and duties and ``to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare of the United States.'' That is what Congress has been required to do since the outset and that is our responsibility today. We should be acting without further delay to preserve the credit of the United States and to provide for our people. The proposed amendments are also inconsistent with the views of Alexander Hamilton, a key author of the Federalist Papers and the creator of the American financial system that allowed us to become the greatest economic engine in the history of the world. The United States was born in debt, of course, and debt has been needed to fund some of America's greatest chapters. Hamilton even termed national debt at times ``a national blessing.'' The Constitution allows for the Federal Government to borrow money at certain times, for wars, infrastructure building, and economic bad times. That fiscal policy can help drive development and unite the Nation. It should not be turned into a divisive wedge against the least powerful among us. I am concerned this is another example of how some in recent years have sought to impose their view by unilateral objection to compromise with minority obstruction. That has, at times, seemed to be the rule in the last few years. Some have tried to undermine the legitimacy of President Obama. Filibusters and requirements for supermajorities have become routine. They have stymied congressional action on behalf of the American people. This year should be a cautionary tale that convinces all Americans that the risks of default and ideological impasses to them, to interest rates, to financial markets, and to our household budgets are too great. We need only recall the game of chicken some played with the government shutdown earlier this year. The threat to push the United States into default on its obligations for the first time in our history is wrong. It is made possible by rules that empower a partisan minority. I cannot help but think if we don't take the steps we should, we will see our interest rates go up. We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in extra interest to China, which they can spend on infrastructure, medical research and education, but we won't have it here in the United States. That is what the other side seems to want. We saw this before, in 1996, when a Government shutdown and a debt limit crisis went on for months as part of a partisan ``train wreck'' intended to extort President Clinton. It is happening, again, this year as some seek to gain political advantage over President Obama. The creditworthiness of the United States is too important to be sacrificed for partisan political advantage but that is what is being threatened. Indeed, this House-passed bill, with its proposed constitutional amendments, makes that more likely, not less. Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, said a few years ago that supermajority requirements ``are against the spirit and genius of our Constitution, which is a charter for democracy; that is, for majority rule.'' He was right then, when the Senate rejected an earlier constitutional amendment on budgetary matters, and that truth remains the same today. We have seen the danger that irresponsible brinksmanship promotes. We should guard against building into the Constitution a supermajority requirement for fiscal policy. That invites political blackmail and gridlock. We have seen enough of that already. I suggest that Congress should not subject our ability to govern to any greater hurdles that would empower the tyranny of the minority on economic policy. Instead of hamstringing Congress with more supermajority requirements, we should be looking for ways to increase our ability to take necessary action to deal with a fast changing and increasingly interdependent global economy. The source of our budgetary problems does not lie with the Constitution. The Constitution remains sound. What is lacking is the political judgment and the courage to do what is right. Having again sought to use the debt ceiling to create a political crisis, congressional Republicans refuse to enact a program of shared sacrifice to put us on a better financial path. In fact, Senate Republicans filibustered the debate of a resolution calling for such a plan. It is telling that the Republican posture is now to require the Constitution to be amended. The last time we balanced the budget, not a single Republican voted for that balanced budget, and yet it created enormous surpluses. These proposed constitutional amendments will not cut a single dime of debt from the Federal budget. Rather than deal with our problems, some want to require that we deface the Constitution with a measure that will, by its own terms, not be effective for 5 years, if it were to be adopted by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and then ratified by three- fourths of the States. Put another way, that is at least three election cycles from now. They get their bumper stickers today, but kick the can down the road for three election cycles. Economists have noted that all of the last five Democratic Presidents have reduced public debt as a share of GDP. The last four Republican Presidents did the opposite with the country's indebtedness increasing during their administrations. During President Reagan and Bush's administrations the Federal debt more than tripled. During the Clinton administration, budgets were balanced and we were paying down the debt from the budget surplus being generated. Then, during the administration of George W. Bush the debt nearly doubled again to more than $10 trillion dollars. We should not amend our Nation's fundamental charter of liberty to include arbitrary and inflexible requirements in order to look tough on spending, but without regard to the consequences. A respected Republican Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, had it right 15 years ago when he said that a ``balanced budget comes only through leadership and compromise.'' In 1992, the Senate and House took the hard votes to enact a budgetary plan that led us to a balanced budget and budget surpluses during President Clinton's time in office. Not a single congressional Republican supported the plan. They favored talking about constitutional amendments then, as well. The balance we achieved was later squandered by the next President, as his policies also wreaked havoc with the financial sector and threatened the entire economy. The near meltdown of the financial markets during the last year of the Bush administration and the resulting recession threatened to drive our economy and that of the world into depression just 3 years ago. President Obama and the Congress responded to pull it back from the brink. In a recent editorial, USA Today put it this way: [A] funny thing happened after that amendment failed in 1997. Thanks to prior deficit-reduction deals and a strong economy, the federal government ran a surplus in 1998 and for the next three years. Then an economic downturn, huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars and unfunded expansion of Medicare plunged the budget back into the red, where it has been ever since. The moral is, Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It just needs the will to do it and the willingness to compromise over how. But rather than make the tough decisions about spending cuts and revenue increases, it's always easier to vote for a balanced budget amendment. I will ask that copies of this and other editorials and opinion pieces from leading newspapers be printed in the Record. The House-passed bill is an end-run around the Constitution's requirements for amendment. It does not have the required support of two-thirds of even the House Chamber. Equally important, it is not necessary. Congress has the power now to take steps to avoid a government default and get us on the path to balancing the budget, just as we did at the end of the Clinton administration. This debate is a distraction from the hard work and hard choices that need to be made. The good news is that we do not need to amend the Constitution to balance the budget. Never have. Never will. The proposed constitutional amendments would also perpetuate bad policy. They are intended to enshrine tax breaks for millionaires and wealthy corporations. It is no wonder that Alexander Hamilton described supermajority vote requirements as ``poison.'' We need a balanced approach to fix the deficit problem. We cannot merely cut our way to balance any more than eliminating congressional earmarks will balance the budget. We will need to close the most egregious tax loopholes and everyone will have to sacrifice and contribute their fair share. There should be no mistake: The proposed amendments to the Constitution are not just unnecessary, they are unwise, unsound, and dangerous. In my view, the House-passed bill and the proposed amendments it requires demeans our Constitution. Never in our history have we amended the Constitution--the work of our Founders--to impose budgetary restrictions or to require supermajorities for passing legislation. Yet now we are saying: Let's do it on a whim. Let's do it without any hearings. Let's do it because we can do it. It would for the first time enshrine minority rule and undermine our constitutional democracy. It will destabilize the separation of powers among our three branches of Government and put into the hands of bureaucrats and judges the fiscal policy of the United States. Who is to decide what the ``GDP'' was for a particular time period, what is to be included and what is not? How often do those estimates and artificial constructs get revised? Since when do economic surveys and extrapolations become embedded in the Constitution? What justifies the constitutional permanence of the number 18, as opposed to 17 or 18.5 or 20? Do we really want judges deciding whether an economics line written into the Constitution has been breached? What remedies could judges order if they find a breach? Who has standing to bring those challenges? None of these questions has been adequately debated or considered. Alternatively, we could end up with future Congresses having to slash Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, unable to respond to natural disasters or national security emergencies. I note that the budget proposed this year by Representative Ryan and the House Republicans with all its draconian cuts and the end of Medicare as we know it would not satisfy this arbitrary limit. Nor would the budgets of President Reagan. Consider whether we could witness future Congresses unable to meet the arbitrary limit and going into violation of that unsound constitutional prescription and the Constitution itself? At the beginning of our Republic, the national Government took on the debts of the States. These proposed constitutional amendments are a recipe for pushing costs and responsibilities onto the states. And doing so at a time when State governments need our help, not more unmet needs. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered several balanced budget amendments over the years. The Senate proposal this year is even more extreme than the version the Senate rejected in 1995 and again in 1997. It is reckless and foolish to rush Senate consideration of such a radical proposal to change our Constitution, without process or consideration. All Senators swear an oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That is our duty and responsibility. The pending amendments to the Constitution threaten the constitutional principles that have sustained our democratic form of government for more than 200 years. The Constitution allows America to flourish and adapt to new challenges. We have amended it only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added. Our Constitution deserves protection. I stand with the Constitution today and I will support the motion to table this ill-conceived legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the materials to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on Monday I, again, set forth the history of our efforts to extend the term of Robert Mueller as the FBI Director in response to the President's request. I am glad that the Senate is now being permitted to proceed to pass the bill. The holds have finally been lifted. I worked with Senator Grassley to respond to the President's May 12 request, and the Judiciary Committee reported a bill to do that more than one month ago. I am pleased that a bill finally passed the Senate today. I hope the House will take up and pass the bill so that it can be signed by the President, and the Senate can confirm Director Mueller's renomination prior to August 3, 2011. This important legislation, S. 1103, would fulfill the President's request that Congress create a one-time exception to the statutory 10- year term of the FBI Director, in order to extend the term of the incumbent FBI Director for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threat to our Nation, especially with the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that we respond to the President's request and enact this necessary legislation swiftly. The incumbent FBI Director's term otherwise expires on August 3, 2011.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, back on May 12, the President requested that Congress pass legislation to enable Robert Mueller to continue serving as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for up to 2 additional years in light of the leadership transition at other key national security agencies--the Secretary of Defense was leaving, there was a change in the directorship of the CIA, and so forth--and, of course, the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches in less than 2 months. In response to the request of the President, a bipartisan group of Senators drafted and introduced S. 1103, a bill that would create a one-time exception to the statute that limits the term of the FBI Director to 10 years. This bill would allow the term of the incumbent FBI Director to continue for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threats to our Nation and the need to provide continuity and stability in the President's national security team, it is important that this critical legislation be enacted without delay. Director Mueller's term expires on August 2, 2011. Of the 12 weeks between the President's request and the expiration of Director Mueller's term, 10 have passed. The time for responsible congressional action has all but elapsed. We are almost in the final hour. Congressional leaders, including Republican leaders, reacted to the President's request saying that they supported it. On May 26, bipartisan legislation providing the one-time statutory exception, which was drafted by Senator Grassley, was introduced. It was cosponsored by me, Senator Grassley, and the chair and vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss. The Judiciary Committee moved quickly to consider this legislation and report it to the full Senate. We proceeded at Senator Grassley's request to a prompt hearing on June 8. I listed the legislation on the committee's agenda for action on June 9. It was held over for another week. Finally on June 16, the committee met, debated the matter, and reported the bill with an amendment to clarify its constitutionality. On June 21, Senate Report 112-23 was filed regarding the bill. We have been trying to reach an agreement to consider the bill for more than a month, but Republican objections have stalled this effort. On June 29, my statement to the Senate warned that we would have only a few short weeks left this month to complete action and for the House to act. We should be acting responsibly and expeditiously. I have worked diligently in a bipartisan way with Senator Grassley in order to prevent a lapse in the term of the Director of the FBI. The bill enjoys the strong support of law enforcement groups, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Native American Law Enforcement Association, and the FBI National Academy Associates. They have all supported it. We must act on this bill without further, unnecessary delays. The Senate must take it up, consider it and pass it, and then the House will need to consider and pass the bill before the President has the opportunity to sign it. Each of these steps must be completed prior to the expiration of the Director's current 10-year term on August 2, 2011. There is no time to waste. All Senate Democrats have been prepared to take up and pass this extension bill for weeks. There is no good reason for delay. At first it was reportedly Senator Coburn who was holding up consideration of the bill, then Senator DeMint, and now apparently it is an objection by Senator Paul of Kentucky that is preventing the Senate from proceeding. I find it hard to understand why we would hold up a piece of legislation like this. This sort of delay is inexplicable and inexcusable. In order to accomplish our goal, I have even been willing to proceed along the lines of an alternative approach demanded by Senator Coburn. That approach is based on a constitutional problem that does not exist. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is an extension of a term limit that Congress imposed on the service of the Director of the FBI. As set forth in the committee report on the extension bill, and as reaffirmed in a June 20, 2011, memorandum opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, the bill reported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate is constitutionally sound and a proper response by Congress to the President's request. Nonetheless, I was prepared to proceed using Senator Coburn's language instead of Senator Grassley's and mine, so long as one further problem was removed. Specifically, the major problem with Senator Coburn's approach is that it would necessitate the renomination of Director Mueller, and then his reconsideration and reconfirmation by the Senate after enactment of Senator Coburn's alternative bill--and all before August 2. On June 29, I warned that this was an additional, unnecessary and possibly dangerous complication. I do not want Americans to approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 without an FBI Director in office. At the markup of this bill in our Judiciary Committee, I was assured by the Senator from Oklahoma that he would get unanimous consent to do all the short time agreements to get the bill passed, get his amendment passed, get it through the House and back, and get Director Mueller confirmed with a 2-hour time agreement. If we did all of that, it would not be the best of solutions, but it would be better than what we have now. Now we have the distractions from Director Mueller that have been created by these extended proceedings, which have been damaging enough. To require his renomination and then allow it to be held hostage or used as leverage, as so many of President Obama's nominations have been, seemed to me a risk that was better avoided. I did not want the extension of Director Mueller's service leading the FBI to fall victim to the same objections that have obstructed Senate action on other important Presidential nominations and appointments. Unfortunately, as I had warned, that is precisely what has happened in this case. I have spoken often about the unnecessary and inexcusable delays on judicial nominations. Even consensus nominees have faced long delays before Senate Republicans would allow a vote. Since President Obama was elected, we have had to overcome two filibusters on two circuit court nominees who were reported unanimously by the committee. These judges-- Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit--were then confirmed unanimously once the filibusters were brought to an end. There are currently 17 judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and yet are stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar because Senate Republicans will not consent to vote on them. These are consensus nominations that should not have been delayed while the Federal courts are experiencing a judicial vacancies crisis. This pattern of delay and obstruction has not been confined to judges. President Obama's executive nominations have been subjected to the same unfair treatment. The first five U.S. attorneys appointed by President Obama were delayed more than 2 months for no good reason in the summer of 2009. These are the top Federal law enforcement officers in those districts and yet it took from June 4 to August 7 before Senate Republicans would consent to their confirmations. They were then confirmed unanimously. The Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission was similarly delayed unnecessarily for almost 6 months, from May 7 until October 21, 2009. He, too, was ultimately confirmed without opposition, but after needless delay. Among a slew of other troublesome examples are these: One Republican Senator objected to a nominee to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because, according to that Senator, the nominee lacked the necessary qualifications. The nominee was a Nobel Prize winner and MIT economics professor. Another Republican Senator is blocking the confirmation of two SEC Commissioners until he extracts action from the SEC related to a case against the Stanford Financial Group. A group of Senate Republicans have sent a letter to President Obama vowing to oppose any nominee to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republican Senators are vowing to block President Obama's nominee to serve as the Secretary of Commerce. In a particularly illustrative case, one Republican Senator lifted his hold on the nomination of the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service only after the administration acceded to his demands and issued 15 offshore oil drilling permits. Shortly thereafter, another Republican Senator placed a hold on the very same nomination to force the Interior Department to release documents on the Department's ``wild lands'' policy. It did not end there. When that dispute was resolved, a third Republican Senator reportedly placed a hold on the nominee, demanding a review of the protected status of wolves. That nominee has still not been confirmed. Regrettably, Senate Republicans have ratcheted up the partisanship, limiting the cooperation that used to allow nominations to move forward more quickly. That hostage-taking should not affect this critical term extension for the head of the FBI, but it has. Another important nomination is being subjected to holds and delays. Another well- qualified national security nominee is being used as leverage by the Republican Senate minority to extract other unrelated concessions. That is what Senator Coburn's alternative plan invited and that is what is happening with Senator Paul's objection to proceeding. Just recently, we finally broke through months of obstruction of the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, key national security related nominations. In May, Senate Republicans filibustered for the first time in American history the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. The nomination of the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice was subjected to similar, inexcusable delay. That nominee was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee and unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and ultimately approved unanimously by the Senate. But that nomination, approved unanimously all along the way, took 15 weeks. It took more than a month just to schedule the Senate vote after the nomination was reported unanimously by two Senate committees. I warned on June 29 that we have no guarantee that the President's nomination of an FBI Director would be treated any differently. Regrettably, that has become true. I wish I had been wrong, but unfortunately the same kinds of delays and obstructions for the sake of delays and obstructions have occurred. Senate Republicans have known since we began consideration of the President's request to extend the FBI Director's term that his plan could not be considered a viable alternative unless there was an agreement from Senate Republicans to ensure that the Senate would complete its work and have the FBI Director in place at the end of the summer. That agreement would take the form of a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, entered into by all Senators, and locked in, on the Record, so that it could not be changed without unanimous consent. That has not occurred. Senator Coburn was unable to convince his leadership and the Republican caucus to agree. That was the only way to ensure Senate action on a nomination before August 2. To complete action in accordance with Senator Coburn's alternative plan would mean not only passing legislation through both the Senate and House, but the Senate also receiving, considering and confirming the renomination of Director Mueller. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 2001 when the Senate considered and confirmed Director Mueller's initial nomination within 2 weeks. I worked hard to make that happen. I predicted in June that given the current practices of Senate Republicans, and their unwillingness to agree on expedited treatment for President Obama's nominations, it was foolhardy to think that all Senate Republicans would cooperate. They have not. There has already been a shifting series of Republican holds over the last month. The bill was reported over 1 month ago and action has been stymied by Republican objections every since. Senate Republicans have simply refused to agree to proceed and now there is no time for a complicated two phase procedure. We need to pass the necessary statutory authority to allow Director Mueller to continue without further delay. As I have said, all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass this extension bill, and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 2. That is what we should be doing. We should do that now. There is no good reason for delay. All that is lacking is Senate Republicans' consent. Virtually everybody that I have heard from in the Senate says that Director Mueller is the right person to lead the FBI at this critical time. Now is not a time--2 months before the anniversary of 9/11--to have somebody new on the job. I hope we will take up the bill soon. I wish we had done it at the time I urged Senators to. I do applaud the Democratic side of the aisle for saying there would be no objections on our side to moving forward to this legislation so that we can extend for 2 years the term of Robert Mueller. I also congratulate and thank Director Mueller and his wife for being willing to put on hold their plans for retirement for those 2 years for the good of the country. Given the continuing threat to our Nation, especially with the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that we respond to the President's request and enact this necessary legislation swiftly. The incumbent FBI Director's term otherwise expires on August 2, 2011. I hope cooler heads will prevail, and I urge the Senate to take up this critical legislation and pass it without further delay. (Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)