September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6495 

New York, and Pennsylvania. That is a 

classic, these two Pennsylvania judges. 

During the August recess the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania said 

that I am the reason the two judges 

from Pennsylvania have not been confirmed. 

Try that one on for logic. He actually 

said publicly that I was the reason that 

Matthew Brann and Edward Mannion 

are not being confirmed, that it is my 

fault. 

Madam President, I will finish this 

consent request: that the nominations 

be printed in the RECORD; that the 

President be immediately notified of 

the Senate’s action and the Senate 

then resume legislative session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Reserving the 

right to object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

it is quite curious that my friend the 

majority leader is complaining about 

the one area I can think of over the 

last year and a half where the Senate 

has met historic norms. In other words, 

we have handled judicial confirmations 

in this Congress here in the Senate in 

a way that meets and in some ways exceeds historic norms. At the same 

time, of course, we have not done all 

the other things we have normally 

done in the past. 

So far during this Presidential election year, we have confirmed 5 circuit 

court nominees and 29 district court 

nominees. That is a good record for 

Presidential election years. Let me 

look at a few. In 1996 we confirmed 18 

district court nominees. This year we 

have confirmed 29. In 2000 we confirmed 

31, in 2004 we confirmed 30, and in 2008, 

the last year of President Bush’s tenure, only 24 district court nominees 

were confirmed. In fact, in 2008 Senate 

Democrats treated President Bush’s 

nominees so badly that they were 

forced to confirm—as the majority 

leader bragged about—10 nominees in 

September of that year just to try to 

catch up to historical norms. So rather 

than bragging about doing 10 on 1 day, 

the reason they did 10 on 1 day is because they were so pathetically below 

historic norms they had to do 10 on 1 

day so as to not be embarrassed by the 

process. If they had not done that, the 

Senate would have confirmed only 14 

district court nominees in 2008, which 

is fewer than half the 29 we have already confirmed this year. 

President Obama is also faring much 

better overall than President Bush did 

in his second term, which is the last 

time the Senate considered and confirmed two Supreme Court nominees. 

The reason I bring that up is because 

Supreme Court nominees take a lot of 

time and effort. President Obama, of 

course, did have two Supreme Court 

nominees confirmed during his first 

term. 

So far the Senate has confirmed 158 

of President Obama’s judicial nominees. Compare that to President Bush’s 

second term when the Senate confirmed only 122 of his judicial nominees. President Obama has had 158 confirmed; while President Bush had only 

122 confirmed. So the Senate has confirmed one-third more judicial nominees than it did the last time it had to 

process two Supreme Court nominees. 

Not only is President Obama being 

treated fairly in absolute terms, but 

the Senate is also treating him fairly 

relative to the number of nominees he 

has submitted. So far during President 

Obama’s term, the Senate has confirmed 158 of his 205 nominees. That is 

a confirmation rate of 77 percent. By 

contrast, President Bush got only 74 

percent of his nominees during his first 

term. 

The contrast is even more revealing 

when we compare President Obama to 

President Bush’s second term. During 

that term, President Bush got only 61 

percent of his nominees confirmed. 

Again, President Obama got 77 percent 

of his nominees confirmed versus 

President Bush’s 61 percent. 

Now we are trying to get consent 

agreements to process the next two district court nominations that are in the 

queue, and we are hoping that will 

come about. That is the procedure we 

have been following. I am hopeful we 

can achieve that. If we do, we will have 

confirmed 31 district court nominees 

this year, which will equal the record 

for the most district court confirmations in a Presidential election year in 

recent memory. So whether it is looked 

at in terms of absolute confirmations 

or relative confirmations, this President is being treated very fairly. 

I am happy to work with the majority leader, but we cannot allow the majority to jam us here at the end of this 

session; therefore, I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I am 

not going to prolong this much, but I 

would say this: No matter how we try 

to juggle the numbers, we still have 12 

emergencies. I hope my friends on the 

other side would at least look at some 

of those emergencies and see if we 

could get some help for those beleaguered judges out there and the court 

personnel. It wasn’t until May 7 of this 

year that we were able to vote on our 

first nominee for this year. They were 

all from last year that we did before 

that. I hope everyone understands we 

have 12 judicial emergencies. If some of 

these nominations were confirmed, it 

would take that away and make life for 

the court system much more fair. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

there is no way to spin the math. 

President Obama has been treated 

quite fairly every way we look at it. He 

has certainly met the historical norms 

with the treatment of Presidents in 

Presidential years. I rest my case. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that I be given 

3 minutes, the Senator from Indiana be 

given 3 minutes, and the Senator from 

Rhode Island then be able to continue 

his remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I 

wanted to follow up on the Democratic 

and Republican leaders’ conversation. 

This is not the first time we have seen 

obstruction for obstruction’s sake over 

noncontroversial, consensus nominees 

to the Federal bench. It has been going 

on for 4 years. 

In 2008 we cleared all 10 of President 

Bush’s district court nominees pending 

on the floor by unanimous consent. 

Now, of course, we are being blocked. 

Well, I don’t think Oliver Wendell 

Holmes could get unanimous consent 

from our Republican colleagues to be a 

district court judge today. 

In the Western District of New York, 

nominee Frank Geraci has total bipartisan support. His slot has been vacant 

for years. We need him to fill that judicial emergency post. His nomination 

has been pending on the floor for more 

than 2 months. Why can’t we confirm 

him today? He passed the Judiciary 

Committee unanimously with strong 

bipartisan support. 

In the Southern District, another 

nominee, Lorna Schofield, has also 

been awaiting confirmation for 2 

months. She also has complete and 

total bipartisan support. What is more, 

she would be the first Filipana confirmed to the Federal bench. The 

Southern District is one of the busiest 

benches in the country, and the judges 

hear among the most important cases, 

such as complex civil litigation, insider 

trading, terrorism. You name it, they 

do it. Why can’t we confirm her today? 

We hear one excuse after another for 

filibustering judges—recess appointments, funding for some area unrelated 

to judges, the so-called Thurmond rule, 

which has never applied to district 

court nominees. 

I support the majority leader’s motion for unanimous consent for these 

pending district court nominees, and I 

hope our colleagues will think about it. 

Before we leave this week, I hope we 

can come together and do what we 

have been doing together for decades— 

confirm uncontroversial judges. 

I yield the floor and yield back the 

remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. 

f 

CYBER SECURITY 

Mr. COATS. Madam President, yesterday Senator LANDRIEU, chairman of 

the Appropriations Homeland Security 

Subcommittee, and I entered a colloquy into the RECORD, and I would 

like to explain very briefly what it was 

we were attempting to do. 

This is essentially to clarify a provision regarding cyber security that is 

incorporated in the continuing resolution, which we will be taking up here 

shortly. I understand there has been 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

confusion over section 137 as to whether the language that is now incorporated in the CR expands DHS authority or allows implementation of a potential Executive order pertaining to 

cyber security. The answer to that 

question is no, absolutely not. The provision is limited to funding improvements in the Federal Network Security 

Program, which provides security systems that monitor cyber attacks on 

Federal Government computer networks. It helps enhance the protection 

for those existing networks that are in 

place. 

It is important that both the House 

and Senate homeland security appropriations bills included this additional 

funding, and it is considered so critical, 

it was added to the continuing resolution so that this implementation can 

continue without interruption. It does 

so because these networks are constantly under attack by individuals 

and groups and others who could cause 

real problems and real harm to our 

country. 

So let me be very clear on the language that has been agreed on in a bipartisan basis and what the colloquy 

said. This provision does not intrude 

upon the authorizers’ jurisdiction. This 

provision does not have anything to do 

with the regulation of private sector 

infrastructure. DHS has confirmed that 

in writing. And this provision does not 

enable a new Executive order in any 

way. I would be the first to object to 

this language if that were the case, and 

I believe we have now remedied any 

confusion that might exist over that 

particular language. 

I am hopeful that even though we 

were not able to ultimately pass and 

incorporate workable cyber protection 

language, that we can continue to 

work together. 

I wish to thank the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator LANDRIEU, for joining me and clarifying this important 

provision included in the continuing 

resolution. 

With that, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for allowing 

me the time, and unfortunately his 

good presentation was interrupted. I 

thank my colleague for the time to 

clarify that. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am very happy to allow my colleague from Indiana the time, and I appreciate his good work on cyber security and hope that he and I and others 

can work toward a legislative solution 

on that. 

f 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My topic had 

been the acidification of our oceans as 

a result of carbon pollution now up 30 

percent in acidity and projected to increase 160 percent in acidity at unprecedented rates in millions of years. It 

has been 50 to 300 million years since 

we have seen this kind of dramatic 

change in ocean acidity. For species 

that use calcium carbonate to create 

their shells and skeletons, such as oysters, crabs, lobsters, and the little 

plankton that so many other species 

depend on as the base of the food chain, 

it becomes harder for these species to 

thrive. 

These unprecedented changes I am 

talking about in ocean acidity are not 

happening alone, they are happening 

on top of dramatically changing ocean 

temperature that is also driven by carbon pollution. 

Just this week on the surface of the 

Earth, we experienced one of the hottest summers on record. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released this statement about the 

northeast shelf large marine ecosystem, which extends from the Gulf of 

Maine down to Cape Hatteras. Here is 

what they said: 

During the first 6 months of 2012, sea surface temperatures . . . were the highest ever 

recorded. Above average temperatures were 

found in all parts of the ecosystem, from the 

ocean bottom to the sea surface and across 

the region . . . The annual 2012 spring plankton bloom was intense, started earlier and 

lasted longer than average. This has implications for marine life from the smallest creatures to the largest marine mammals, like 

whales. Atlantic cod continued to shift 

northeastward from its historic distribution 

center. 

I don’t need to tell anybody in the 

Northeast how important the stability 

of the cod fishery is right now. That 

historic fishery is facing significant reductions in catch limits because the 

population is not rebounding as expected from the reduced catches that 

fishermen are already contributing to 

try to solve this problem. Something is 

causing that failure to rebound, and 

the unprecedented environmental 

changes occurring in the ecosystem 

can’t be overlooked as the culprit behind this unexplained phenomenon of 

failure to rebound. 

NOAA cited a 2009 study published in 

Marine Ecology Progress Series that 

analyzed survey data in the region 

from 1987 to 2007. It found that about 

half of 36 fish stocks evaluated have 

been shifting northward for the past 

four decades, with some disappearing 

from U.S. waters as they move farther 

offshore. 

In Narragansett Bay, in my home 

State of Rhode Island, average water 

temperatures have increased by 4 degrees. This amounts to an ecosystem 

shift. In fact, the bay, once dominated 

by bottom-dwelling fish, such as winter 

flounder, is now more populated by 

open-water species, such as squid and 

butterfish. 

Let’s look at winter flounder a little 

bit more closely. In the 1960s, the biomass of winter flounder in Narragansett Bay was as high as 4,500 metric 

tons. By 2011, it was down to just about 

900. This is the total estimated biomass 

on the blue line. The red line is the 

landmass. That is what the fishermen 

were able to catch and bring in. As my 

colleagues can see, it went from 1,000 

metric tons up to 2,000 metric tons and 

then, over time, it sagged and returned 

to 2,000 metric tons, and now it is left 

to virtually zero. This was a very productive fishery for Rhode Island fishermen and it is now virtually gone. 

Past overfishing had a role to play, 

but so too has the dramatic temperature change and the stock’s ability to 

recover is made all the more difficult 

by ongoing temperature change as well 

as acidification. 

The changes facing our oceans do not 

stop at higher temperatures and greater acidity. I wish they did. But as average global temperatures rise, water expands. Water expands as it gets warmer, and new fresh water pours out of 

the snowpack and ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Long-term data 

from tide gauges in our traditional 

sailing port of Newport, RI, show an increase in average sea level of nearly 10 

inches since 1930. At these tide gauges, 

measurements show that the rate of 

sea-level rise has increased in the past 

two decades compared to the rate over 

the last century. The increase is not 

just happening, it is speeding up. This 

is consistent with reports that since 

1990, sea level has been rising faster 

than the rate predicted by scientific 

models used to generate the IPCC estimates. 

Global predictions for sea-level rise 

range from 20 to 39 inches by the year 

2100, with recent studies showing that 

the numbers could be even higher than 

that due to greater than expected melting of glaciers and ice sheets. 

Our Rhode Island Coastal Resources 

Management Council has used these 

predictions to estimate that by 2100, 

the sea level in Rhode Island could rise 

approximately 2 to 5 feet. For our 

coastal ocean State, that is a dramatic 

threat. 

Sea-level rise and the increase in 

storm surges that will accompany it 

threaten at-risk coastal areas, whose 

roads, powerplants, wastewater treatment plants, and public facilities may 

need to be reinforced or relocated. 

The natural environment there—estuaries, marshes, and barrier islands— 

has a role. They act as natural filtration systems and they act as buffers 

against storms, and they are being inundated by rising seas. In Rhode Island, local erosion rates doubled from 

1990 on to 2006. Some of the freshwater 

wetlands near our coast are already 

transforming themselves into salt 

marsh as a result of this inundation. 

Our Coastal Resources Management 

Council has documented places such as 

a beach in South Kingstown, where 160 

feet of shoreline has been lost to erosion since 1951 at a rate of 3 feet per 

year. 

In the small but vibrant coastal community of Matunuck, beaches have 

eroded 20 feet over the past 12 years. 

The town faces difficult decisions as 

the only road connecting the community and its restaurants and businesses 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE