S6494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

the World Wildlife Fund was established in the United States, he became 

its first President. 

This week the World Wildlife Fund 

U.S. CEO Carter Roberts described 

Russell Train as ‘‘a true national treasure and an inspiration to all of us who 

embrace conservation as their life’s 

work.’’ 

Mr. Roberts went on to say: 

Undoubtedly, Russ would prefer that we 

not spend a lot of time mourning his passing. 

He would want us to redouble our efforts to 

save the animals and places we care about, 

to solve the problems of climate change and 

resource scarcity, and to build leadership capacity in those countries where it is needed 

most. 

So it is with his legacy in mind that 

I come to the Senate floor today, as I 

try to do every week, to discuss climate change, the science behind it, and 

the reality of the changes we are already seeing. This week I will focus on 

how the carbon pollution that is causing these climate changes is also affecting our oceans and causing an 

equally threatening problem—ocean 

acidification. 

Sea water absorbs carbon dioxide; 

and when it does, chemical reactions 

occur that change the concentration of 

carbonate and hydrogen ions in a process that lowers the pH of sea water, 

commonly referred to as ocean acidification. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, we 

have burned carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing amounts, 

now up to 7 to 8 gigatons each year. We 

have raised the average parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 

parts to 390. By the way, the range for 

carbon dioxide in our atmosphere for 

the last, say, 8,000 centuries has been 

170–300 parts per million. So we are 

well outside of that range. Indeed, in 

the Arctic, measurements have already 

reached 400 parts per million. 

The oceans of the Earth have absorbed more than 550 billion tons of 

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

That is approximately 30 percent of all 

of our carbon dioxide emissions. The 

good news is that absorbing all this 

carbon has significantly reduced the 

greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere. The bad news is that because of 

all this carbon absorption, the ocean 

pH has changed globally, representing 

a nearly 30-percent increase in the 

acidity of the ocean. By the end of the 

century, ocean pH is predicted to 

change further, leading to a 160-percent 

increase in acidity. 

This is where we are so far. This is 

what is projected. This rate of change 

in ocean acidity is already thought to 

be faster than anytime in the past 50 

million years. A paper published in 

Science this year concluded that the 

current rate of CO2 emissions could 

drive chemical changes in the ocean 

unparalleled in at least the last 300 

million years. 

The authors of that Science study in 

March warned that we may be ‘‘entering an unknown territory of marine 

ecosystem change.’’ As the pH of sea 

water drops, so does the saturation of 

calcium carbonate, a compound critical to marine life for the construction 

of their shells and skeletons. Some organisms absorb calcium and carbonate 

directly right out of the water, others 

out of the food they ingest, but 

changes in the concentrations of these 

chemicals mean the building blocks become less available to make the shells 

of species such as oysters, crabs, lobsters, corals and the plankton that 

comprise the very base of the food web. 

As oceans get more acidic, it gets 

harder and harder for these important 

species to thrive, and it puts at risk 

the economies that depend on these 

species. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. I appreciate very much my 

friend from Rhode Island yielding, and 

I appreciate his focusing attention on 

something we do not focus on nearly 

enough—and that is a gross understatement—and that is our oceans. I admire 

the work he has done in so many different areas. We thought we had a path 

forward to do some good for oceans. It 

did not work out the way Senator 

WHITEHOUSE and I wanted. We will 

come back again because we have to do 

something about oceans. We study everything else but not our oceans, and 

most everything else depends on what 

happens in the ocean. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the leader. 

f 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST— 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Mr. REID. Madam President, we currently have 17 district judges on the 

calendar, 14 reported by voice vote. For 

the people within the sound of my 

voice, what that means is they are not 

controversial. Twelve will fill judicial 

emergencies. These are places around 

the country where we have judges who 

are tremendously overworked on these 

important cases. 

We have heard this kind of joke: 

What are you trying to do, make a Federal case out of it? What that means is 

the Federal system is so good that people look at it as being the best there is 

as far as judicial activity. 

I am disappointed to say my Republican friends on the other side have informed me they will not agree on votes 

on any of these nominees. Republicans 

can offer no reason for blocking these 

bipartisan consensus district court 

nominees. I understand why they 

didn’t want us to do circuit courts—I 

understand that. I may disagree, but I 

understand that because Democrats 

have set boundaries in the past, as 

when we would no longer accept circuit 

court judges. But this is district court 

judges. 

Historically, the Senate has considered district court nominees as late as 

October in Presidential election years. 

In the past five Presidential election 

years, Democrats have never blocked a 

district court nominee from receiving a 

vote on the Senate floor, never. But 

our Republican colleagues are setting 

new standards for obstruction, not only 

in all the legislation but in judges. 

For the 28 district court nominees we 

have considered this year, I filed cloture 19 times. In other words, we have 

had to break a Republican filibuster on 

67 percent of the district judges we 

have considered and confirmed. President Obama’s district court nominees 

have been forced to wait 300 percent 

more than President Bush’s nominees; 

three times more. Only two people 

whom the President nominated this 

year have been confirmed. The kind of 

qualified consensus nominees who in 

years past would have been confirmed 

in a matter of minutes are now taking 

weeks and months, languishing with no 

action. These votes should be routine. 

There should not be a fight that 

delays action on important job measures. In September 2008, right before 

the last Presidential election, Democrats confirmed 10 of President Bush’s 

district court nominees in 1 day. More 

than half of the Nation’s population, 

160 million Americans, live in the part 

of the country where there has been a 

judicial emergency declared. That 

means more than half the people in 

this country seek justice from courts 

and judges that are strained to the 

breaking point under a backlog so intense an emergency has been declared. 

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, of course, knows I am here. He 

wants to be on the Senate floor, but 

the time did not work. He has done a 

remarkably good job getting the judges 

out. With 1 out of every 10 Federal 

judgeships standing vacant, Americans 

can no longer wait on fair and speedy 

trials, and that is what they have to 

do. They cannot rely on them. 

Republicans should work with Democrats to confirm consensus district 

court nominees now. Refusing to do so 

is irresponsible. The Senate could act 

today and put highly qualified judges 

on the Federal bench, judges supported 

by both Democrats and Republicans. 

I hope we can get something done before we leave. I don’t want to file cloture on these nominees before the end 

of the year. It is not the way we should 

be working around here. We should be 

working together. 

I have a consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 

to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 674, 

675, 676, 760, 761, 762, 818, 828, 829, 830, 

832, 833, 834, 835, 875, 876, and 877; that 

the nominations be confirmed; the motions to reconsider be considered made 

and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and that no 

further motions be in order to any further nominations; that any statements 

relating to the nominations be printed 

in the RECORD. 

Further, Madam President, before 

you rule, we have the gamut. We have 

California, Utah, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan, 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
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