[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 102 (Monday, July 12, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5732-S5735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NASA Authorization
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while we are waiting on other
Senators who wish to speak on this judge, I wish to briefly inform the
Senate that this coming Thursday, the full Commerce Committee will
consider a number of bills that it will mark up. Among them is the
authorization bill for NASA.
We are building consensus in what has otherwise been a consensusless
position of the future of the manned space program. The President had
proposed one thing. He altered that. Different people have different
ideas. Different aerospace companies all looking to have a certain part
of the manned space program also have their different ideas.
Out of this mix, we are trying to bring together Senators to build a
consensus in a bipartisan way; the space program is not only not
partisan, it is not even bipartisan. It is nonpartisan--to be able to
do this in a fairly unanimous way.
I am happy to report to the Senate that I think we are getting there.
I believe what we will have is the essence of the President's proposal.
It will still have the continuation of the President's proposal for
competition among commercial space companies to deliver not only cargo
to the International Space Station, of which the President recommended,
and we will certainly
[[Page S5733]]
authorize extending the life of the space station to 2020, something on
which we have spent $100 billion. It did not make sense, as was
proposed before, to cut it out in 2015, something we spent that much
money on and are just now completing its construction. These commercial
companies would, in this authorization bill, have the direction as to
how they go about man rating their systems in order to have the safety,
when you strap human beings on to rockets that defy the laws of
gravity, to take a human being into low-Earth orbit to rendezvous and
dock with the space station and to return safely. That is one thing.
The next thing on which we are building a consensus is to accelerate
the development of a heavy-lift vehicle. The President said no later
than 2015. We are going to authorize NASA to start in 2011 and to take
a lot of the existing technology and build upon that, make it evolvable
with a heavy-lift vehicle that would be in the range of 75 metric tons
in order to get space assets in the low-Earth orbit to ultimately
fulfill the President's goal as stated in his speech to the Kennedy
Space Center, which was to go to Mars by a flexible path. His specific
timeline was to rendezvous and land on an asteroid by 2025. We
accelerate the development of the heavy-lift vehicle.
Because the hardware is there and ready, will be on the pad, we are
going to authorize an additional flight of the space shuttle. This is
the shuttle that they call the ``launch on need.'' It is a second space
shuttle that is on the pad for the remaining two, in case they get into
trouble. It becomes a rescue shuttle to get the marooned astronauts,
were that to be the case.
The fact is, they are doing so well now, and now that we are going to
and from the space station on these final two missions, the likelihood
of anything happening is de minimis and, therefore, we are going to
authorize the flying of that last shuttle, the launch on need, because
we believe there is a minimal risk. If something did happen on ascent--
such as a piece of foam coming off and hitting the wing and knocking a
hole in it, which was the cause of the destruction of the Space Shuttle
Columbia back in 2003--then the astronauts would be able to take safe
harbor in the International Space Station, and they would then be able
to be returned to Earth by other vehicles, such as the Russian Soyuz,
which is a permanent lifeboat that is attached--two of them--to the
International Space Station.
We will continue in this authorization bill a robust research and
development program. We will continue the President's recommendations
for his science budget, for his aeronautics budget of NASA, and all of
this will be within the amount of money the President has proposed.
This NASA authorization bill will be for 3 years. We are expecting
that we will be able to take this up this Thursday and to pass it out
of the full Commerce Committee.
We, of course, in respect to the appropriations process, have been in
close consultation with our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee.
How the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee worked
together has been a good example of considerable cooperation.
I wanted to bring that message to the Senate. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know--I assume we are on the confirmation
of Sharon Coleman?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. First, I am going to speak a little bit about the process
of her nomination through the committee. The distinguished Presiding
Officer would know about this because he has had probably the best
attendance of anybody, including the chairman, on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and he has handled a number of these nominations.
We are going to proceed today on only 1 of the 22 judicial
nominations that have been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican
obstruction. This is a nominee we considered and voted out of the
Judiciary Committee unanimously 3 months ago without objection.
Just so everybody will understand, even after being nominated to
serve on a court, these well-qualified nominees have to put their lives
on hold. We have the hearing, they go through the committee
unanimously, but then they wait and wait on the Senate floor. If the
nominee is practicing law they cannot take on new clients. If they are
with a law firm, they have a hard time taking new cases as the law firm
needs to avoid any conflict of interest.
I cannot understand why this obstruction is happening. I have never
seen anything like this in my 36 years in the Senate. No Republican
Senator on the Judiciary Committee voted against this nomination. There
are another dozen judicial nominations on the Senate's Executive
Calendar that were reported by the Judiciary Committee without
objection, but they remain stalled by a Republican refusal to consent
to final Senate action.
I tell people in my home State of Vermont I am sent here to vote yes
or no, not to vote maybe. It seems to me everybody wants to vote maybe.
There is no good reason each of these pending nominations could not be
confirmed immediately. With so many nominations, despite ongoing
vacancies and the need in the Northern District of Illinois for this
judge, 3 months have passed without any explanation.
I predict that when we have the rollcall on this nomination it will
be confirmed with virtually no opposition, which makes it even more
tragic. Also, it hurts the Federal judiciary. It hurts the credibility
of the Federal judiciary. But I might say, especially on something like
this, where the Senate Republican leadership would not even consent to
a vote on the nomination until today, this certainly hurts the image of
the Senate. People cannot understand why, when we have something on
which everybody agrees, why it cannot come to a vote.
We have the Senate Republican leadership refusing to enter into time
agreements on pending judicial nominations that have the support from
both Democrats and Republicans, including nominations with bipartisan
support from North Carolina and Tennessee and South Carolina and
California and New York and Delaware and Virginia and Utah, Maryland,
Minnesota, and Rhode Island. Every single Democrat is prepared to vote
on these nominations. They could vote on them tonight and are prepared
to vote now. However, they continue to be held up by Republicans.
So I tell the people of North Carolina and Tennessee, South Carolina
and California and New York and Delaware and Virginia and Utah and
Maryland and Minnesota and Rhode Island, if you are wondering where
your judges are, they are being held up not by the Democrats but by the
Republicans.
In fact, the Senate is dramatically behind the pace I set for
President Bush's judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. In 2002, the
second year of the Bush administration, the Democratic Senate
majority's hard work led to the confirmation of 72 Federal circuit and
district judges nominated by a President from the other party. In this
second year of the Obama administration, we have confirmed just 23 so
far--72 for President Bush, 23 for President Obama.
In the first 2 years of the Bush administration, we confirmed 100
Federal circuit and district court judges. So far, in the first 2 years
of the Obama administration, the Republican leadership has successfully
blocked all but 35 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district
court nominees--100 to 35.
Playing games with the Federal judiciary hurts everybody. During the
first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency, I had the opportunity to
serve for 17 months of as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I
knew we had just come from a time where Republicans had pocket-
filibustered 61 of President Clinton's nominees to the judiciary. I
said we ought to try stopping that, so in those 17 months that I had
the privilege to serve as chairman, I convinced the people in my caucus
and others and we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees.
I mention this because in the first 48 months of President Bush's
Presidency, actually barely half of that time, 17 months of that 48
months, there were Democrats in charge. For 31 months of this time
there were Republicans in charge. During the 17 months that the
[[Page S5734]]
Democrats were in charge, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's
nominees. During the 31 months the Republicans were in charge I think
they confirmed around the same number. So we showed our good faith,
even though we had seen 61 of the Democratic President's nominees
pocket-filibustered.
At this date in President Clinton's second year in office the Senate
had confirmed 72 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. At
this date in President Bush's second year in office, 57. Of course, we
confirmed 100 in all by the end of the year.
Federal judicial vacancies around the country continue to hover
around 100. Of these, 43 vacancies have been declared by the
nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be judicial
emergencies. I cannot remember a time when we have had 43 judicial
emergencies.
Sharon Coleman has been nominated to fill one of them, but we have
had to wait 3 months just to get to a vote on her. Ten nominations to
fill other judicial emergency vacancies have been reported out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and they remain stalled in the Senate. Last
year, when Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's nominees, we
confirmed the fewest judges in 50 years, the fewest judges from any
President, Republican or Democratic, in 50 years.
Speaking of another nominee, I said to President Obama when he asked
why they were blocking everything he tried to do, I said: If you had
nominated Moses the Lawgiver, there would be some who would try to
block the nomination. In fact, I said, at least somebody would say:
Well, he can't produce a birth certificate.
This is playing games with the Federal judiciary. I don't know what
the benefits are. It certainly does not make the Senate look good. When
you think the Senate Republican leadership last year allowed only 12
Federal circuit and district court nominees to be considered and
confirmed, despite the availability of many more for final action--that
is wrong. They have continued their obstruction throughout this year.
By every measure, this Republican obstructionism of our Federal
judiciary is a disaster for the Federal courts and the American people.
But the good thing is Sharon Coleman is going to be confirmed today.
After these unnecessary delays, she will be confirmed, and I
congratulate Sharon Coleman and her family on her confirmation.
She is currently a justice on the Illinois Appellate Court of
Chicago, having served previously as a judge on the Circuit Court of
Cook County, IL, as Deputy State's Attorney and Bureau Chief for the
Public Interest Bureau of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, as
an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois, and as
an assistant State's attorney in Cook County.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary unanimously rated Justice Coleman ``well qualified.'' That is
the highest possible rating they could give her.
After she is confirmed, and she will be, there will be still 21
judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee that
have been stalled from Senate consideration by the Senate Republican
leadership. For many months I have urged the Republican leader to work
with the majority leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus
nominees. Going forward, we will have many who will be confirmed by our
committee unanimously. We ought to get them to the Senate floor and
vote on them. The Senate needs to be making better progress considering
the many pending judicial nomination awaiting final Senate action.
I see the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I assume he wishes to
speak, and I will yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the chairman. I thank
him for the wonderful job he has done trying to move our judges along.
I agree with the Senator, the fact we have to go to a vote on this
distinguished nominee; it should be done by unanimous consent, and we
should not have had to take up this time. But if that is the will of
the body, then so be it.
Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong support of Judge Sharon
Johnson Coleman, a proud resident of my home State of Illinois and of
course a fellow Chicago south-sider. We are very proud of which side
she comes from in Chicago, west side or south side. Few appear from the
north side. We don't have a deal with the east side because that is
Lake Michigan. We are proud of that.
She received her law degree from Washington University in St. Louis,
and she has served as an assistant State's attorney, deputy State's
attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. She quickly proved she knew her
way around the courtroom and could be very successful in the cases she
tried.
From 1996 to 2008, she served as a circuit court judge in Cook
County. She displayed a thorough understanding of the law and a fair
temperament that marked her as a model jurist.
She was assigned to the Child Protective Division for 2\1/2\ years
and was a jury trial judge in the law division for almost a decade.
In 2008, Judge Coleman was elected to the Illinois Appellate Court.
She has served there ever since and is doing a tremendous job in her
deliberations.
I am proud to support her nomination to become a district judge for
the Northern District of Illinois. We are short of judges in that
district. The caseloads are heavy, and we can stand to have a few more
of those nominees confirmed by this body.
Judge Coleman is an excellent jurist, and I place my full confidence
in her as President Obama's nominee for this post. She has been
supported by all of our bar associations. She has won numerous awards
and received recognition in her career. She has been a tremendous
member of the bar and of the judiciary.
I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting her in this
confirmation. I agree with my chairman. These judges should be
confirmed so we can move on with some other important business of this
body.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Sharon Johnson Coleman, of Illinois, to be
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Maryland (Ms.
Mikulski), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Florida (Mr. LeMieux),
the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Ex.]
YEAS--86
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
[[Page S5735]]
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--13
Begich
Brownback
Gillibrand
Hagan
Kohl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Mikulski
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shaheen
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________