Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we are again voting to overcome a Republican filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for a judicial emergency vacancy on the busiest circuit court in the country. For what is already the third time this year, the majority leader has had to file cloture on one of President Obama's circuit court nominees in order to move the nomination forward. In stark contrast, the Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit nominees within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Michelle Friedland, nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is an exceptionally talented attorney, and has an exemplary record of service in the top echelons of the legal profession. She clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from 2001 to 2002 and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for Judge David Tatel from 2000 to 2001. Ms. Friedland earned her B.S. with honors and distinction from Stanford University in 1995. She studied at Oxford University from 1995 to 1996 as a Fulbright Scholar and went on to earn her J.D. with distinction from Stanford Law School in 2000. For over a decade, Ms. Friedland has worked in private practice at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, where she was named partner in 2010. She has taught as an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia School Law and as a Lecturer in Law at the Stanford Law School. Ms. Friedland has experience in both the trial court and appellate levels, including the United States Supreme Court. She manages an active pro bono practice and frequently represents the University of California in constitutional litigation. She received the President's Pro Bono Service Award in 2013 from the State Bar of California, and the LGBT Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in 2009. The American Bar Association unanimously awarded her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' It comes as no surprise to me that Michelle Friedland's nomination has received significant support. Kathryn Haun, Assistant United States Attorney and Former Counsel to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, wrote to the Committee to express her support, saying ``Michelle and I fall at opposite ends of the political spectrum . . . Notwithstanding our political differences, I believe she would make an outstanding federal appellate judge . . . Michelle has a deep respect for legal precedent above seeking a particular result in a given case. She has a balance and a willingness to listen to all arguments before formulating a position on a particular issue. She displays, above all else, intellectual honesty and personal modesty that suit her exceptionally well for a federal appellate judgeship.'' Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, at the UCLA School of Law, expressed his strong support for Ms. Friedland to the Committee, writing ``Michelle is a brilliant and extremely accomplished lawyer, who will make a superb judge. . . [She] has impressed not just those on her side of the political aisle, but conservatives as . . . well.'' General Counsel from multiple fortune 500 companies including Google, Cisco, and Facebook echo their support of Michelle Friedland, noting that ``Her career has been marked by energy, integrity, and legal excellence. She has represented a broad spectrum of clients in both the private and public sectors . . . The careful, unbiased approach she would bring to the types of issues that arise before the Ninth Circuit are critical to our nation's values and to its economic health.'' In their letter of support, 22 former Supreme Court Law Clerks to Justice O'Connor write, ``We have differing political views and differing careers, but we can all agree that Michelle would be an excellent federal appellate judge. We have . . . enjoyed her warm collegiality, her honesty and fairness, and her dedication to law above ideology. Michelle would be a tremendous addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we urge you to confirm her nomination.'' I ask unanimous consent that a list of letters of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. If confirmed, Michelle Friedland would increase the gender diversity on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She would be the seventeenth female judge to ever sit on the Circuit. In comparison, 83 men have been appointed to the Ninth Circuit over the course of its history. Her confirmation would bring the percentage of active female judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nearly 38 percent. Her confirmation would also mark the first time, since the 29th judgeship was added in 2007, that it has had a full complement of active judges despite having the highest number of appeals filed, the highest pending appeals per panel and the highest pending appeals per active judge of any Circuit in the country. Yet here we are, again voting to overcome a Republican filibuster of an exceptionally talented nominee to a court that desperately needs to be operating at full strength.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks the 30th annual National Crime Victims' Rights Week. It is a time to recognize victims of crime and their families and to acknowledge the efforts to help them recover and rebuild their lives in the wake of tragedy. It is also a time to ask what more we can do to help serve victims of crime and improve our criminal justice system. We have an opportunity this week to pass a bill that will not just pay lipservice to crime victims but actually impact and improve their lives. It is time to pass the Justice for All Act. The Justice for All Act is a bipartisan bill that Senator Cornyn and I introduced nearly 1 year ago to improve the quality of justice in this country. It was approved by the Judiciary Committee in October by a unanimous voice vote, and it cleared the Democratic side of the hotline on March 27. However, it still has not passed the Senate because Senate Republicans object. For reasons that have not been explained, Republicans have failed to consent to passing this commonsense bill. This is no way to treat victims of crime, especially during a week when we seek to honor them. The Justice for All Act reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who waited years for her rape kit to be tested. Although delayed for years, that rape kit test ultimately enabled the perpetrator to be caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not have the same experience. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. The Justice for All Act reauthorization establishes safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and enhances protections and legal rights for crime victims. It is supported by experts in the field and law enforcement, including the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Center of Police Organizations, and the National District Attorneys Associations. Yet even during Crime Victims' Week, which coincides with Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, Senate Republicans have not yet shown a willingness to clear the important reauthorization. Senator Cornyn was on the floor just last week and earlier today expressing his commitment to getting this passed and signed into law. I urge him to lead his caucus to get it through the Senate. He and I both know that a unanimous voice vote in the Judiciary Committee is uncommon and happens on only the most uncontroversial and uniformly applauded bills. This is one of those bills, and we need to pass this today. Senator McConnell is also a cosponsor of this bill. This effort has been bipartisan from the beginning, and I am proud that we have the minority leader and the minority whip helping to lead this effort. Despite the support of the Senate Republican leadership, the bill nonetheless remains stalled. Perhaps it is because the House Republican leadership would rather pass a much narrower bill. I trust that the Senate will stand up for all victims who deserve justice, just as we did when the Senate passed an inclusive Violence Against Women Act reauthorization last year. Our bipartisan Senate legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first death row inmate in the United States to be exonerated through the use of DNA evidence. Since the Justice for All Act was first enacted in 2004, we continue to see cases in which people are found to be innocent after spending years in jail. Thomas Haynesworth was exonerated in 2011 after spending 27 years in prison for crimes he did not commit, thanks to a grant provided by the Justice for All Act. He was accused of rape in 1984 and wrongfully convicted, and the real perpetrator in this case went on to rape more than a dozen women. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. This bill also provides funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, which assists laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting offenders. I cannot imagine why is there an objection to supporting scientific testing and improving the reliability of criminal convictions. Every American, including crime victims, is better served when our justice system has the resources it needs to operate effectively. If there is a person in the Senate who objects, I ask them to come forward and explain that to me and to the American people. I would welcome that debate. The hotline on this bipartisan Justice for All Act reauthorization has been running on the Republican side since March 31, and I have not heard one substantive argument against the merits of this bill. Police officers, prosecutors, and crime victims agree on the necessity of this bill. Why can't we? The Justice for All Act takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. Our justice system, including successful prosecution, depends upon effective representation on both sides. This is not a time for delay. This is a time for leadership. The stakes are too high and crime victims are depending on us to do the right thing. I urge all Senators, and particularly those in the Republican caucus, to clear this bill today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 5 years ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law by President Obama. That bill--necessary because of a divided decision by the Supreme Court to strike a blow to the rights of working families in Vermont and across the country--was a first step in closing the still-existing gender wage gap. Today, one day after commemorating Equal Pay Day, Senators will once again have the opportunity to stand with working families and support equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. I am proud to cosponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Senator Mikulski--a trailblazer herself--has once again introduced to close loopholes that allow employers to unfairly discriminate workers based on gender. Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of earlier generations, working women today have career and business opportunities never before available. Yet, despite the gains we have made, there remains a troubling constant--women continue to earn less than men. According to the Census Bureau, women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This disparity has real-world, financial consequences: on average, women are paid more than $11,000 per year less than men. And of American households with children under the age of 18, 40 percent list women as their sole or primary earners. The wage gap based on gender is hurting low- and middle-income families who, in today's economy, still wrestle with putting food on the table, heating their homes, paying the mortgage, and saving for college. Vermont has been a national leader in addressing equal pay for equal work. In 2002, Vermont adopted its own Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to offer anything less than equal pay for equal work. Still, in Vermont, where 22,000 households are headed by women, the yearly gender pay gap is nearly $6,000. More needs to be done, and we can do better. Our national march toward equality continues. The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on efforts that date back more than 50 years to ensure a balanced and equal playing field in the workplace for both men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act will require employers to show a difference in pay is truly linked to job performance and not to gender. It will protect employees from being retaliated against by their employers for discussing salaries with colleagues, and remove obstacles to challenging pay discrimination in a court of law. It will provide employers with assistance to create equal pay practices and recognize those who already adhere to such practices. These are commonsense provisions we can all support. The Paycheck Fairness Act has twice before been filibustered in the Senate. Meanwhile, hard-working families across the country, anchored by the incomes of hard-working women, continue to struggle. Equal pay for equal work is a matter of simple fairness, and the Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step towards just that. I urge all Senators to support this bill. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska for yielding. I was interested in hearing her speech too. Landmines The Presiding Officer represents the beautiful Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But consider if 15 percent of the land area of Massachusetts was littered with 100,000 landmines or if my State of Vermont, with a slightly larger land area, was littered with landmines. Each one a tiny explosive buried a few inches beneath the surface of the ground, and it explodes when an unsuspecting person steps on it. Each one capable of killing a child or blowing the legs off of an adult. This may sound far-fetched, but it is not. It is the reality today for many countries--from Vietnam to Angola to Colombia. But if that were the reality in our States, I think we would all agree that these inherently indiscriminate weapons--designed to be triggered by the victim regardless of whether it is a civilian or combatant--do not belong in the arsenal of a civilized country. In fact, 161 nations have already agreed, and they have joined together in an international treaty banning antipersonnel mines. They include every member of NATO except one--the United States. They include every country in this hemisphere except two--the United States and Cuba. We condemn the use of IED's against our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan, and of course we should. But why not condemn antipersonnel landmines? There is really no appreciable difference. I am hoping some will be listening to me at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue because I ask this: If landmines were littering this country--in schoolyards, along roads, in cornfields, in our National Parks--and hundreds of American children were being crippled like this Cambodian girl who lost her left foot, how long would it take before the White House sent the Mine Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification? Two days? Two weeks? It wouldn't take any longer than that, I am sure. Yet we hear the same excuses year after year. I look at my five beautiful grandchildren and I ask, what if they were living in a country where simply by walking across a field, going to a playground, or walking down a road, they might lose their lives? They are not combatants. It is usually civilians who are injured and killed by these landmines. We hear the same excuses year after year-- why the most powerful Nation on earth cannot join its NATO allies, why the most powerful Nation on earth is the only country other than Cuba in this hemisphere not to sign it. What do we get? The same talking points, the same power points. It is really bureaucratic inertia. It is also a lack of leadership. For 20 years the Pentagon insisted that Korea was the problem. But 20 years later, there is absolutely no evidence they have done anything to revise their Korea war plans without antipersonnel mines or that any President, Democratic or Republican, has ever told them to do so. The U.S. Government deserves credit for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clear mines and help mine survivors, and the Leahy War Victims Fund has been an important part of that, including the money I have gotten through appropriations to clear land mines. But this girl--and there are countless more like her--we are told there are thousands of new mine victims each year, show the other tragic side of the story. I mentioned on the floor the other day about talking to a young teenager in the hospital about the Bosnia war. She had been sent away by her parents to a safe place during the fighting. The war ended. She could come home. She was running down the road calling out to her parents and stepped on a land mine and lost both her legs. She wasn't a combatant. She became a victim. There are so many innocent victims. Americans overwhelmingly condemn the use of landmines, and they expect more than they are getting from their government, and so do I, and so, too, should every Member of Congress. It has been 20 years since President Bill Clinton at the United Nations called for the elimination of antipersonnel landmines. I cheered him when he did. Two years later in 1996 he said: ``Today I am launching an international effort to ban antipersonnel landmines.'' And I cheered that. But 18 years later we are still waiting. We are waiting for action, not words. We haven't signed the landmine treaty. We didn't sign it during the Clinton administration or the George W. Bush administration or this administration. I have spoken to President Obama about this. I was encouraged when, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, he said: I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don't. I told the President how much I agreed with his words. Coincidentally, when he received the Nobel Prize it was a decade after the Nobel committee awarded the prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. How fitting it would be after all these years if my friend, President Obama, gave real meaning to the words he said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize by putting the United States on a path to join the Mine Ban Treaty, and joining our NATO allies. This is what the President needs to do. More importantly, it is what America and the world needs. I will speak further about this on another occasion, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on, April 9, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``From Here to Mars.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on, April 9, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 9, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing Primary Care Access and Workforce Challenges: Voices from the Field.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on, April 9, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Education Series: Indian Students in Public Schools--Cultivating the Next Generation.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, April 9, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Comcast- Time Warner Cable Merger and the Impact on Consumers.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Election Administration: Making Voter Rolls More Complete and More Accurate.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 11 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for the Small Business Administration.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 9:15 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, April is Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, and it is an important reminder of the ongoing problem of sexual assault in our nation. The Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which first passed in 1994, has had an astounding impact on reducing sexual and domestic assault in our country. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent since VAWA became law. This groundbreaking bipartisan legislation included many provisions critical to supporting and improving services for all victims of sexual assault and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to find and prosecute perpetrators. I was proud to author the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which was signed into law by President Obama last year. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act built upon past successes and expanded its protections to more inclusive to the victims most at risk of domestic violence and sexual assault, including LGBT, Native American, and immigrant victims. One aspect of this important effort that did not receive much attention is how it increased focus on sexual assault prevention, enforcement, and services to encourage reporting. It also increased support for programs that improve law enforcement and forensic responses to sexual assault and to address backlogs of untested rape kits. These improvements, along with the many others made in the reauthorization, will continue to advance the national response to sexual assault. Our bipartisan effort last year is making lives better today, but there is much more we must do. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, in their annual National Domestic Violence Counts Census, found that every day 9,000 service requests go unmet because of a lack of resources. This is not acceptable. Every day tens of thousands of victims turn to domestic and sexual violence services providers for support through emergency safe shelters, legal assistance, and child support groups, and we must do all we can to ensure these needs are met. We cannot stop by simply supporting a strong VAWA law. That is why I was proud to support the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which included historic reforms to sexual assault prevention and response within the military. I was also heartened last month when the Senate came together to pass the Victims Protection Act of 2014 by a vote of 97 to 0. This legislation takes even greater steps to encourage military servicemembers to come forward and report sexual assault. As I have said many times, a victim, is a victim, is a victim. We must protect all victims, including our Nation's service men and women, and that means working to decrease the fear of stigma or inaction that can often deter reporting. Following the reauthorization of VAWA, the passage of the NDAA, and the Victims Protection Act, I hope the Senate will soon approve the bipartisan Justice for All Act reauthorization that I authored with Senator John Cornyn. I was proud to author the original legislation, and our reauthorization includes many critical provisions for victims. Importantly, our bill reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which seeks to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and other DNA evidence. This program is named after Debbie Smith, who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. Every Senate Democrat has cleared the way for passage the bipartisan Justice For All Act reauthorization, and I hope Senate Republicans will act quickly so we can pass this measure that means so much to rape survivors and all victims of crime. I applaud the tireless work of the many advocates who work on behalf of victims each day and thank them for their dedication to this critical problem. Together we have taken significant steps to ensure victims of sexual assault have access to the services they need to rebuild their lives, that law enforcement have the tools they need to prosecute those who commit these horrific crimes, and to reduce future incidences of sexual assault through education and prevention efforts. Last year, the Senate stood up for the survivors of rape by passing the Leahy- Crapo Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Today, as we mark Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention month, I hope Senate Republicans will join Senate Democrats to stand with them again by passing the Leahy-Cornyn Justice For All Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am particularly proud of my home State, as we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the passage of Vermont's law guaranteeing marriage equality. Throughout history, Vermont has taken a leadership role in America's journey to build a more just society. Vermont was the first State in the Union to outlaw slavery, and Vermonters offered shelter to runaway slaves seeking refuge while in transit to Canada--serving as one of the last stops on the Underground Railroad. Vermont was also the first to adopt universal manhood suffrage, regardless of property ownership. It is because of this history that it is not surprising that Vermont has been at the forefront of our Nation's march toward marriage equality: Vermont was the first State to provide civil unions to same- sex couples back in 2000. On April 7, 2009, Vermont took the next step, overriding a veto to pass legislation affording marriage equality to all Vermonters in loving relationships who wanted their commitment recognized by the State. Once again Vermont led the Nation by granting marriage equality for the first time through democratically elected officials on a bipartisan basis, instead of through the courts. This is not to say that it was easy. The initial move toward civil unions fomented heated debate among Vermonters and throughout the Nation. Several courageous leaders, such as the late Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont Bob Stafford, and State Representatives Bill Lippert and Marion Milne, among others, showed us the way, and their advocacy for equality was powerfully moving. Like many Vermonters, I listened to advocates, friends, and neighbors who reminded us that love and commitment are values to encourage and not to fear. I continue to be inspired by the inclusive example set by Vermont. Now, 5 years later, 3,766 same-sex couples have married in the State of Vermont, 17 States and the District of Columbia have marriage equality, and the Supreme Court has decided a landmark case on the issue of same-sex marriage. In that case--United States v. Windsor--the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of Federal law as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman.'' The Court reasoned that the law deprived couples of equal liberty as protected by our Fifth Amendment. All Americans deserve equal justice under the law, and Marcelle and I, married for more than 50 years, celebrated this important decision, which pushed the Nation farther on its path toward equality. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have long worked to make civil rights a focal point of our committee's agenda and a priority in the Senate. I often hear from those who think that the struggle for civil rights is over--that this issue is one for the history books. I remind them that this is our recent history and that while we have made great strides, there is still much work to be done. The march toward equality must continue until all individuals-- regardless of sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability--are protected and respected, equally, under our laws. I am confident that Vermont will continue to lead the way, and I am proud of all that we have already accomplished.

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, the Vermont Commission on Women this year celebrates its 50th anniversary. Established in 1964 by Vermont Governor Philip Hoff, the commission was established in response to a challenge presented by President Kennedy, urging every State in the country to create such commissions ``to encourage women to use their abilities, and to reduce discrimination against women.'' I am proud that Vermont's is one of the oldest continuously operating commissions in the United States. The commission's work is fueled by 16 volunteer commissioners, a team of advisors and a small but energetic staff. By advocating for new State laws and strengthening old ones, the commission has fought to reduce gender discrimination, achieve pay equity, support families and create job opportunities for women in my home State. Just last year, the commission was a strong force in strengthening provisions of Vermont's Equal Pay Act, so that women move closer to the reality of receiving equal pay for equal work. The law also extended protections so that employees could ask coworkers about their pay, and perhaps learn of disparities, without fear of retaliation. I have no doubt the commission's ongoing efforts have helped Vermont women narrow the gender pay gap, to 84 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Vermont is leading the way in this area: the national level finds women earning 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. I am grateful to the commission for its ongoing support for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate will consider in the coming weeks. The commission also serves as a needed source of information. Its handbook, The Legal Rights of Women in Vermont, serves as a valuable guide for women who may find themselves in need of advice on matters such as adoption, employment rights, housing and divorce. The commission also conducts research, coordinates conferences and workshops, and engages in partnerships, all in the interest of furthering gender equality. Despite the great strides that have been made over five decades in Vermont and across the Nation, we know that many discriminatory issues affecting women still exist today, and that the need for the commission's work is still critical. The State of Vermont is very fortunate to have such a strong group advocating for women's rights. I have been proud to work with the Vermont Commission on Women for over 15 years on Vermont's Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, an annual event in Vermont that brings women of all different backgrounds together to talk about the challenges facing women in the work place. I am proud to acknowledge and honor the Vermont Commission on Women as it celebrates 50 years of leadership and achievement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives passed Senate legislation to provide loan guarantees to Ukraine and to impose sanctions on certain Ukrainian and Russian officials. This legislation comes at a time when Ukraine's future hangs in the balance between democracy and dictatorship. The brave Ukrainians who protested across the country and at Maidan square have shown an inspiring determination to defend their freedom. Many of them endured the brutal attacks of riot police, snipers, and below freezing temperatures. Some died in the mayhem. President Putin, who has long demonstrated his disregard for international law and human rights in his own country, has now extended that sphere of repression to Ukraine by violating its sovereignty and strong-arming its citizens. This legislation exemplifies our support for a free and democratic Ukraine. The new government will face every imaginable economic, political, and security challenge, but the country's interim leaders have already indicated a willingness to implement austere reforms to put their country on the right track. It is important that during this time of uncertainty the people of Ukraine know that they have the full support of the United States and the international community. In addition to the loan guarantees which will be available immediately to help facilitate the development of a more resilient economy, the legislation authorizes funds for democracy and security assistance in future years. It also imposes sanctions against various Ukrainian and Russian officials who have been identified as principles in the subversion of democracy in Ukraine and who have treated the public treasury as their own personal bank account. While efforts to recover stolen assets will not restore the entire amount that has disappeared, it will further expose President Yanukovych and other corrupt officials for the criminals that they are. I do want to say that I am very disappointed that domestic politics prevented inclusion of provisions, included in the version of the bill that was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, authorizing U.S. support for reforms and participation in the quota increase at the International Monetary Fund. These reforms have been widely recognized as important for global economic stability, for maintaining U.S. leadership at the IMF, and for our efforts to maximize international assistance for Ukraine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership decided that partisan politics at home is more important than U.S. leadership in an international organization that we were instrumental in creating. Ukraine and Russia have a shared history, but it is clear that the people of Ukraine see their future with Europe. That is why it is imperative that we support them at this critical time, and that we send a strong message to President Putin that there are real consequences to the use of brute force to violate the territorial integrity of Russia's neighbors. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds our assistance for Ukraine, my subcommittee will not only provide the budget authority to pay the subsidy cost of the loan guarantees, we will also look for other ways in fiscal year 2015 to protect it and its neighbors from further Russian aggression.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, I called on members of the Senate to come together and support reauthorization of the Justice for All Act, a bipartisan law that increased resources devoted to DNA and other forensic technology, established safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions, and enhanced protections for crime victims. The bipartisan bill to reauthorize this historic law was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall. Every Senate Democrat has cleared the way for passage of this important measure, and I hope Senate Republicans will soon follow suit so that we can take one step closer to reauthorizing this law that protects and supports victims of crime. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. The legislation strengthens important rights for crime victims, reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, seeks to improve the quality of indigent defense, and increases access to post-conviction DNA testing to help protect the innocent. The reauthorization legislation also strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program. Kirk Bloodsworth was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. The program named for Mr. Bloodsworth provides grants to States for testing in those criminal cases like Mr. Bloodsworth's where someone has been convicted but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013 expands State access to post-conviction DNA testing funds by restricting the evidence preservation conditions set for this program to felony cases, which is a more attainable goal for States. This legislation also takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States in developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. We need to continue the bipartisan work that has been done. During the Judiciary Committee mark-up we unanimously adopted amendments before passing the bill, one from Senator Dianne Feinstein, and one from Senator Jeff Flake. Both amendments strengthened rights for crime victims, and added to the comprehensive improvements contained in the bill. I thank Senators Coons, Udall of New Mexico, McConnell, Klobuchar, Franken, Portman, Feinstein, Hatch, Schumer, Landrieu, Burr, Collins, Bennet, and Shaheen for their support as cosponsors of this bill. I am glad to be partnering with Senator John Cornyn on this legislation. We have done important work in the Judiciary Committee to support law enforcement and victims of crime. Last week, he and I introduced sweeping legislation to improve the use of forensic evidence in criminal cases. The Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act helps ensure that forensic labs throughout the Nation operate according to the highest standards, and that State and local labs have the resources they need. Both that measure and the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013 are important priorities to support our criminal justice system and law enforcement. We must stand behind these bipartisan efforts, and I urge Senate Republicans to join all Senate Democrats in supporting passage of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday the Senate voted to end the filibuster on the nomination of John Owens of California to a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is the longest running vacancy in our entire Federal court system. Today the Senate will finally vote to confirm this outstanding nominee to a court that is in desperate need of judges. The Ninth Circuit is the busiest circuit court in the country, and yet it has not been operating at full strength for more than nine years. It has the highest number of appeals filed, the highest pending appeals per panel and the highest pending appeals per active judge. It also takes far longer than any other circuit court to resolve an appeal. The delay in resolving these appeals hurts the American people. After confirming John Owens, the Senate should proceed to Michelle Friedland's nomination to the Ninth Circuit as soon as possible. The nomination of John Owens is an example of how the process of judicial nominations and consultation with home State senators should work. Under Article II of the Constitution, the Senate has a significant role to play regarding our independent judiciary. We are called upon to work with the President by providing advice and consent for Federal judicial appointments. Some have recently questioned the rationale behind the so-called ``blue slip'' process that solicits the views of the home State senators before a judicial nomination moves in the Senate. I have explained that this blue piece of paper reflects the ``advice'' prong of the Senate's role. If an administration does not consult with home State senators to seek their advice on a nominee, it is far less likely the nominee will receive their support. This support is crucial to the successful confirmation of judicial nominees. In the almost four decades I have served in the Senate, I cannot recall a single judicial nominee confirmed over the objection of his or her home State senators. Today's confirmation to the Ninth Circuit is yet another example of that reality. In the prior administration, rather than working with the California senators to fill this seat on the Ninth Circuit, President Bush unnecessarily complicated and delayed filling this vacancy by nominating Judge Randy Smith of Idaho. In doing so, President Bush attempted an end run around home State Senators Feinstein and Boxer. Instead, he consulted with the senators from Idaho--both of whom were Republican senators. Judge Smith was not a Californian and did not receive support from the California Senators. When President Bush took my advice and re-nominated Judge Smith to fill an Idaho vacancy on the Ninth Circuit at the beginning of 2007, Judge Smith received the support of both Idaho Senators and was confirmed quickly. The Bush administration also tried to get around home State senators in Maryland to fill a vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. President Bush chose to nominate Claude Allen of Virginia, a controversial nominee with limited experience who received a partial ``not qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, and the Maryland Senators understandably objected. Mr. Allen's nomination did not move forward due to the objection of the proper home State Senators from Maryland. Meaningful consultation and support of the appropriate home State Senators continues to be important to the confirmation of nominees, and the vote we are taking today on John Owens is proof of that. President Obama nominated Mr. Owens last August, and his early October hearing date had to be moved after Republicans forced a shutdown of our government. A hearing on his nomination was finally held in late October. Mr. Owens could and should have been confirmed before we adjourned last year. Instead, because Republicans refused to consent to hold any nominations in the Senate, every single one had to be returned to the President at the end of last year. They then had to be renominated and reprocessed through committee this year. Mr. Owens was voted out of committee on a voice vote, without dissent, on January 16, 2014. Born in Washington, DC, Mr. Owens earned his B.A., with high distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D., with distinction, Order of the Coif, from Stanford Law School. At Stanford, he was the Nathan Abbott Scholar, an award given to the student with the highest cumulative point average in the class. Mr. Owens served as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review, where he earned the Stanford Law Review Board of Editors Award. After law school, Mr. Owens served as a law clerk to Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court. He has been a litigator in both public and private practice. In 1998, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice, where he would later serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California. In 2008, Mr. Owens was promoted to serve as the Deputy Chief of Major Frauds and later the chief of the criminal division. In 2012, he rejoined private practice as a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson where he presently works. Over the course of his legal career, he has been counsel of record in more than 20 cases before the court on which he is nominated to serve. Mr. Owens has the support of his home State senators--Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to confirm Mr. Owen's nomination to the Ninth Circuit so that he can get to work for the American people. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, March 21 was the 21st anniversary of World Water Day. On this day, we call attention to the centrality of water in our lives and communities, and we recognize the vital work that must continue to ensure that every person has access to clean water and sanitation. The acute challenges in improving access to clean water and sanitation in developing countries are well known. Nearly 800 million people lack clean water and more than 2 billion people are without basic sanitation. In a world of increasing water scarcity and climate unpredictability, the risks associated with an unstable water supply will only intensify. A wide assortment of global health and development challenges can be traced directly, or indirectly, to a lack of access to clean water and integrated water resource management. In recent years, the depth and pervasiveness of these problems have gained increasing attention. In 2000, the U.S. signed the Millennium Development Goals, one of which seeks to halve the number of people without access to clean water and basic sanitation by 2015. This attention has also led to the formation of international partnerships such as Water and Sanitation for All in 2012, of which the United States is an active member. As projections stand now, the MDG clean water target has already been met while there is still a long way to go in reaching the sanitation goal by 2015. The United States has long been a leader in supporting efforts to improve global access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and water resource management. The Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, a bill which I strongly supported, was the first major legislation enacted to make access to clean water and sanitation a U.S. foreign policy priority. Each year, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I have included increasing amounts of funding to implement the Paul Simon Act. We should reflect on the legacy of the late Senator Simon and take a moment to recognize and appreciate his contributions to making clean water a development priority. His work is carried on through the programs and policies of the legislation that bears his name. On World Water Day, we should also recognize the indispensable work that has been done by governments, NGO's, and private companies to provide access to clean water and sanitation. I have visited Haiti three times in recent years to inspect the work of rebuilding crucial infrastructure, shattered by the earthquake. My wife Marcelle worked for many years as a registered nurse. In 2012 she saw, firsthand, some of these vital clean water and sanitation initiatives. A nonprofit organization, Pure Water for the World, based in Rutland, VT, implements a sustainable model for clean water programs in developing countries by building low-cost water filtration systems, installing latrines to improve sanitation, and providing hygiene education in local communities. We must also realize how much work is still left to do in this area of development, and understand that to tackle 21st century problems we need innovative solutions. The release of the U.S. Agency for International Development's new water strategy last year was an important step, especially with its focus on sustainability and enhanced monitoring and evaluation of projects. I will continue to support USAID's work to carry out its mission and the strategic objectives in the water strategy. More than $365 million was included for WASH programs in the 2014 omnibus appropriations bill that was signed into law on January 17. Congress should also pass the Water for the World Act, which would give USAID additional tools to address these critical issues. Lastly, I want to highlight the theme of this year's World Water Day, which is ``water and energy.'' The links between water and energy cannot be ignored. Nearly eight percent of all global energy is used to transport, pump, and treat water for a variety of consumers, while energy generation and transmission also requires massive water resources. With more than a billion people also lacking access to electricity, we need to address both these issues together. World Water Day reminds us how fortunate we are in the United States to be able to turn on a faucet and have clean water, because for many hundreds of millions of people this luxury is not close to a reality. While we have made progress in bringing clean water and sanitation to millions across the world, there is still much work to be done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are once again spending unnecessary floor time overcoming a procedural obstacle so we can move to an up-or- down vote on a judicial nomination. John Owens is nominated to fill the longest open vacancy on our Federal courts. For more than 9 years, the busiest circuit court in our Nation--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--has been running at less than full strength. In 2013, the Ninth Circuit had 12,761 appeals filed, several thousand more appeals than the next busiest circuit. It also had 14,171 appeals pending, three times more than the next busiest circuit. Each judge in that circuit has nearly 525 appeals pending per active judge. That is nearly 70 more appeals pending per active judge than the next busiest circuit. These caseloads are not sustainable and the delay in resolving these appeals hurts the American people. We should and must approve Mr. Owens's nomination, along with Michelle Friedland's nomination to the Ninth Circuit, as soon as possible. Mr. Owens was first nominated last August and his early October hearing date had to be moved after Republicans forced a shutdown of our government. A hearing on his nomination was finally held in late October. Mr. Owens could and should have been confirmed before we adjourned last year. Instead, because Republicans refused to consent to hold any nominations in the Senate, every single one had to be returned to the President at the end of last year. They then had to be re- nominated and re-processed through committee this year and Mr. Owens was voted out of committee on a voice vote, without dissent, on January 16, 2014. Mr. Owens is among six circuit nominees pending on the Senate floor. We last voted on a circuit nominee during the last work period in early March and before that we voted on a circuit court nominee in early January. If Republicans continue to obstruct the Senate from having up- or-down votes on uncontroversial judicial nominees, at our current pace of filing cloture petitions once every month or so, we will not have time this year to vote on even those who are currently pending on the Senate floor. We have not had a vote on a judicial nomination this year that was not subject to a Republican filibuster. For all but two Republican Senators, I have started to notice a pattern of voting to end filibusters only if a nominee is from a State with at least one Republican home State Senator. Most recently this happened yesterday on the cloture vote for Judge Edward Smith of Pennsylvania. It should not require a judicial nominee to be from a State with one or more Republican home State Senators for some Senators to do the right thing. Filling vacancies so that our Federal judiciary can be fully functioning should not be a partisan issue. Born in Washington, DC, Mr. Owens earned his B.A., with high distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D., with distinction, Order of the Coif, from Stanford Law School. At Stanford, he was the Nathan Abbott Scholar, an award given to the student with the highest cumulative point average in the class. Mr. Owens served as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review where he earned the Stanford Law Review Board of Editors Award. After law school, Mr. Owens served as a law clerk to Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court. He has been a litigator in both public and private practice. In 1998, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice, where he would later serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California. In 2008, Mr. Owens was promoted to serve as the Deputy Chief of Major Frauds in the Southern District office and later the Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2012, he rejoined private practice as a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson where he presently works. Over the course of his legal career, he has been counsel of record in more than 20 cases before the court on which he is nominated to serve. Mr. Owens has the support of his home State Senators--Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to vote to end the filibuster of Mr. Owen's nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Over the past 20 years I have spoken many times about the toll inflicted on innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers from antipersonnel landmines. I have talked about it in the Senate, in Ottawa, and in most parts of the world. The reason I have done so is that landmines, like booby traps, are inherently indiscriminate. They are triggered by whomever comes in contact with them, whether an unsuspecting child, a farmer, a refugee, or a soldier. They are the antithesis of a precision guided weapon. One hundred sixty-one nations, including most of our allies and friends and every European member of NATO, have signed a treaty banning them. One hundred sixty-one nations had the courage to sign that treaty. Unfortunately, the United States is conspicuously not among them. In 1994, 20 years ago, in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bill Clinton called for the elimination of antipersonnel landmines. Two years later, in 1996, President Clinton said: ``Today I am launching an international effort to ban anti-personnel landmines.'' President Clinton went on to announce a U.S. plan to develop alternatives to landmines, with the goal that the United States would end its use of antipersonnel landmines by 2006. We had a meeting in Ottawa where nations came together and Canada's Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, called for an antipersonnel landmine treaty. But in 1997 the United States missed an opportunity to be a leader in the international effort to ban antipersonnel mines, when it failed to sign the Mine Ban Treaty. The year 2006 came and went. President Clinton's administration ended and President George W. Bush served for 8 years. President Obama was then elected and then reelected. In the meantime, U.S. troops fought two long ground wars. They fought those wars without using antipersonnel landmines. In 2010, along with 67 other Senators, Democrats and Republicans, I sent a letter to President Obama. We commended him for agreeing to review the U.S. Government's policy on antipersonnel mines, and we urged him to conform U.S. policy to the Mine Ban Treaty as a first step. That was 5 years ago. Five years since the start of that review we are still waiting for the results. After 20 years and three U.S. Presidents, there is no evidence the United States is any closer to joining the treaty than when President Clinton made that speech. I find it disheartening as an American to think that my country is unwilling to stand with these 161 other countries, many of which real threats, and yet we will not join them. The Pentagon has long argued that landmines are needed to defend South Korea. In 1996, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry said the Pentagon would ``move vigorously'' to achieve alternative ways to prevent a North Korean attack so they would no longer need landmines. In the last century, in 1996, they pledged to vigorously. I don't know what their definition of ``vigorous'' is, but after 20 years there is no evidence they have done anything to revise their Korea war plans without antipersonnel mines or that any President has told them to do so. One could ask what difference it would make if the United States joins the Mine Ban Treaty. As I said, we have not used antipersonnel mines for 23 years. The United States has done more to support humanitarian demining than any other country in the world. We have not exported antipersonnel mines since the Leahy law was passed in 1992, and we have spent many tens of millions of dollars through the Leahy War Victims Fund to aid those injured by mines. If we are not causing the problem, why bother signing the treaty? Because antipersonnel mines continue to kill and cripple innocent people and because indiscriminate, victim-activated weapons have no place in the arsenal of a civilized country. Countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Great Britain have signed it. The United States has by far the most powerful military in the world, and this treaty needs the strong leadership of the United States. As President Obama said in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize: I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't. Twenty years after President Clinton's U.N. speech, President Obama can give real meaning to his words by putting the United States on the path to join the treaty. That means destroying what remains of our stockpile of mines. We are never going to use them. Get rid of them. It means revising our Korea war plans to eliminate antipersonnel mines. President Obama is the only one who could make that happen. Time is running out. Let me tell a story. During the ill-fated contra war, during the time of the Reagan administration, I was visiting one of the contra camps along the Nicaragua-Honduras border. As I looked from a helicopter, I saw a clearing inside Nicaragua where there was a field hospital. So we decided to land. I talked to the doctors who were treating victims. There was a little boy, about 10 or 12 years old, who came out, and he had a makeshift crutch. He had one leg. He came from a family who survived from what they could hunt and gather in the jungle along the border. We talked to him, and it turned out he had lost his leg by stepping on an antipersonnel mine--mines that were not going to stop any army, they were just there to terrorize and injure civilians. This is not a picture of that little boy, but this is an example of what happens. I asked the boy which side put this mine there. He had only a vague knowledge of what the two countries were, that there was a border there. All he knew was that his life was changed forever. He would not be able to earn a living as his parents and grandparents and others had. He had a place to stay only because the doctors had put a pile of rags and sheets in the corner on the dirt floor where other people were recovering from their war wounds. I became more and more interested in the horrifying toll of landmines around the world, and I met other innocent victims like this young girl her legs and a hand missing. I think of those in conflicts especially children--who saw what they thought was a pretty and shiny toy on the side of the road, and they touched it only to have their limbs blown off or their eyesight lost. I think of the teenage girl I met in an area where there was a war. I met her at a hospital where she was getting artificial legs through the Leahy War Victims Fund. Her parents had sent her away during the war, where she would be safe. The war ended and she was walking home and saw her parents and started running toward them, and in a flash a landmine explodes and she both her legs were blown off. After World War I, countries came together to ban poison gas. We had international negotiations to do that. The Pentagon was against it, arguing that they might need to use poison gas sometime. We get the same reaction today about antipersonnel landmines: we might need them some day. This photograph show one of the places supported by the Leahy War Victims Fund--where they make artificial legs. If any one of the Senators in this body were to lose a leg, our insurance would buy us a high-tech leg to replace it or we might be told: You can have an even better one but it will cost $500 or $1,000 more than your insurance will pay. We would all take out our checkbook and pay it. Here, we are talking about countries in which the per capita income is maybe $300 or $400 a year. Signing a landmine treaty is not going to by itself stop everything. There are millions of mines still littering countries where the wars ended decades ago. As I said earlier, the United States, to its credit, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to clear mines and to help people who have been injured. But why shouldn't the United States of America--the country that should be the moral leader--why shouldn't we step up and sign the treaty? How do we credibly tell others not to use them, when they say: Yes, but you never signed the treaty. You have reserved the right to use them. You are the most powerful Nation on Earth; we are not. Why shouldn't we? I am proud of the Leahy War Victims Fund, but I would give anything to think there was no need for it. Maybe that day will come. I tell President Obama: Time is running out. You know what you should do. I think if he talked to President Clinton, he would find that President Clinton wishes he had signed it. Let's sign it now. Do that. That can be part of his legacy. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.