Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate today will pass the SAFER Act with important amendments I requested to ensure that law enforcement gets the support and funding it needs to make real progress in processing rape kits. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which was a key part of the bipartisan Justice for All Act that passed in 2004, has been instrumental in reducing the number of untested rape kits in crime laboratories around the country. However, large numbers of additional untested kits have come to light in police departments, many of which never make their way to crime labs at all. It is unacceptable to let victims of these terrible crimes live in fear while evidence languishes in storage and criminals remain on our streets. I have made fixing this significant problem a priority. I included important new provisions addressing backlogs of rape kits in law enforcement offices in my Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which the Judiciary Committee reported with bipartisan support earlier this year. My bill would provide law enforcement with access to funding to actually reduce their backlogs, along with best practices, training, and technical assistance they have requested to help them do so. Senator Cornyn and others have attempted to address this same problem through the SAFER Act. The audit provisions included in the SAFER Act can help shed light on the problem, but I believe it is crucial that funding and assistance actually reach law enforcement agencies to help them address their backlogs and get kits tested. That is why it is so important that the provisions from the Justice for All Reauthorization Act doing just that were incorporated into the SAFER Act. I thank Senator Cornyn for working with me and agreeing to this amendment to ensure that this legislation will result in more kits being processed. I also thank Senator Grassley for helping to facilitate this agreement and for adding important accountability measures. I want to thank Debbie Smith, the courageous survivor after whom the grant program we modify today is named, and her husband Rob, for their continuing tireless work to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal Debbie went through. Their efforts have made a real difference to countless victims all over the country. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act includes many other significant measures to make the criminal justice system work better for all Americans. I am disappointed that it will not pass this year. I appreciate Senator Grassley's support for the bill when it was reported from committee, and I look forward to working with him and with Senator Cornyn and others to pass the full bill next year. I am glad we take an important step to help achieve justice for victims of rape and sexual assault. I hope we will go still further and beyond next year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. As I said earlier on the floor this week, I will miss working with her. We have worked together on a number of things. I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, has already spoken on the amendment of the junior Senator from Kentucky which would offset a portion of the cost of the supplemental by rescinding unobligated funds from the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution for the Department of State and foreign aid programs and operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development. I agree with him in opposing it. The fiscal year 2013 CR provides $13.4 billion for these national security programs. Of course, we are only 90 days into the fiscal year and $10.4 billion is not yet obligated. No matter how good an amendment such as this might sound, we need to talk about the reality. These days we seem to have two types of arguments, those that go to symbols and those that go to substance. Let me speak about the substance of what this amendment would do to all of our foreign assistance programs. It would effectively bring to a halt U.S. foreign aid programs around the world. It would shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. The distinguished Presiding Officer and his family have experienced how important these programs are throughout the world. Let me tell my colleagues some of the things this amendment would do. It would force early termination of contracts that are based on the fiscal year 2013 budget request such as military aid for Israel and Egypt, potentially resulting in significant early termination and legal costs to U.S. taxpayers. It also tells these countries not to rely on us: We will make agreements with you, we will give you contracts, but we may change our mind 2 months into the fiscal year. Is this how the greatest, most powerful Nation on Earth should act? Come on. The amendment would reduce the amount available for these programs during the continuing resolution by 67 percent. The amendment sets a floor of $5 billion for these programs for all of fiscal year 2013; that would be a cut of 81 percent. It is not clear how or when additional funds would be provided. In fact, the lack of clarity would wreak havoc on operations and programs that have bipartisan support. That is why Senator Graham and I both spoke in unison on this. Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum support these programs. It might make a good press release back home to say we are going to cut all this money from our foreign aid programs, particularly when no mention is made that these programs are a mere 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, but these programs represent a large percentage of the face of America throughout the world. This amendment represents a myopic misunderstanding of the world we live in, where our economy and our security are intricately linked with those of other countries. Frankly, a lot of countries wish we would do something such as this so they could step in with influence that would be counter to the interests of the United States. Now is not the time to abruptly end our lifesaving global health programs, including the PEPFAR initiative of the George W. Bush administration, which I and many Democrats and Republicans supported, and which also protects the health and safety of Americans living here and traveling and studying and working overseas. I would ask: Are we actually going to end anticrime programs in Mexico and Colombia or military and economic aid for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan? If anyone wants to eliminate all those programs, then vote for this amendment. But if colleagues want to keep anticrime programs in Mexico and Colombia and keep military and economic aid for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, then vote against this amendment. This amendment would curtail relief aid for refugees and victims of natural disasters, from earthquakes to famines. How many times have we seen a tsunami or an earthquake and the world says: At least the United States of America is there. How about if we said: Sorry, we may be the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, but we can't help you. How about the Peace Corps? Of course, this amendment would shut it down. The Millennium Challenge Corporation? It would shut that down. The list goes on and on. I mention these things because they have all had strong bipartisan support--Republican and Democratic support, both in Congress and in Republican and Democratic administrations. Let's not waste our time like this. It is a classic example of recklessly robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need Americans to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy rebuild their lives. But we cannot do it by eliminating programs that are critical to our economy and especially programs critical to our national security. This amendment also includes a new provision that would prevent all funds within this act from being considered emergency spending. Can any one of us stand on this floor with a straight face and say the devastating effects of the largest Atlantic hurricane in history is not an emergency?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would ask consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill, are you ready to vote? I will take 30 seconds.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when they say it is not an emergency, look at what happened with this hurricane. We lost 120 American lives. We lost 340,000 homes. We lost 200,000 businesses due to the effects of Sandy. If that is not an emergency, then I have not seen an emergency in all my years in the Senate. There are 12 States with disaster or emergency declarations in place due to Sandy's wrath. It produced an emergency disaster for our Nation. It should be considered as such through the appropriations process, and I applaud the Chair of the Appropriations Committee for moving this. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate is enacting provisions sent to us by Representative Conyers, Chairman Smith and others to repeal a shortsighted limitation passed in 1994 to limit Secret Service protection of former Presidents. The House bill reverses the 10-year limitation enacted during a time when partisans were angry at the American people's election of President Clinton. They contended they were saving taxpayers money with this change in protection, but I doubt their legislation had any such effect. Now that the limitation might limit Secret Service protection for George W. Bush, they are ready to reverse course. We live in a world of real threats and dangerous people intent on wrongdoing. I support this effort to protect former President Bush and other Presidents going forward. I think we should take a more thorough look at this outdated statute and expressly extend protection for the minor children of former Presidents, as well. In today's world, I do not believe ending such protection at age 15 is prudent. I have raised the issue with the authors of this legislation, with the Secret Service and with the current administration. They are hesitant to improve upon the current bill. I think we are making a mistake by not taking this opportunity to extend protection to children in our first families until they reach 21 years of age. I will not hold up the beneficial change that will be made by the House bill in order to demand a more thorough overhaul of the statute at this time. I suspect Congress will need to reassess this matter because we have not done all we should now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Earlier this Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives came together to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most comprehensive change to our Nation's patent laws in 60 years. It was the result of more than 6 years of bipartisan, bicameral work by many, including my counterpart on the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Lamar Smith. Now 15 months since President Obama signed our bill into law, its reforms are already starting to take effect, benefiting inventors and businesses around the country. I am pleased the Senate has taken action to pass Chairman Smith's technical corrections legislation, H.R. 6621. The legislation makes a small number of changes to clarify and improve the law and to help streamline its implementation. The bill corrects several minor drafting errors and clarifies provisions concerning the inventor's oath, notice of patent term adjustments, derivation proceedings, and the terms of the Patent Public Advisory Committee. It also addresses an inadvertent ``dead zone'' by clarifying the remedies available to those wishing to challenge patent applications. The changes are straightforward and noncontroversial. They should help reduce confusion and ease implementation of the law. I appreciate Chairman Smith's efforts to draft this legislation and to move it through the House of Representatives so the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, and participants in the patent system can benefit from its effects. Regrettably, the legislation passed today does not include one technical correction that would improve the law by restoring Congress's intent for the post-grant estoppel provision of the America Invents Act. Chairman Smith recently described certain language contained in that provision as an ``inadvertent scrivener's error.'' As written, it unintentionally creates a higher threshold of estoppel than was in the legislation that passed the Senate 95-5, or that was intended by the House, according to Chairman Smith's statement. I hope we will soon address this issue so that the law accurately reflects Congress's intent. We must also continue to focus on the troubling problem of several hundred ``pre-GATT'' patent applications that have now been pending before the Patent Office for over 18 years. The original version of this legislation in the House addressed that problem by providing a 1- year window for the pending applications to be processed. Unfortunately, that language was removed before final passage in the House and replaced with a provision requiring the Patent Office to prepare a report. The amended bill the Senate has passed today strikes the report, but I will work closely with the PTO to identify the cause of the delays and ensure that the PTO has the tools it needs to address any abuses by those who may be trying to game the system and use the patent laws to impede, rather than encourage innovation. There is still more work to be done to address the problems that confront our patent system. The assertion of patents is still too often used by patent trolls to extract payment even where there is not infringement of a valid patent, and the ``tech patent wars'' among the large mobile phone companies show the perils to competition that can come when companies do not reach business-to-business resolutions of their patent disputes. But the important reforms made by the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act go a long way toward improving the patent system. This legislation will help streamline those reforms, helping inventors, businesses, and the countless American workers employed in industries that produce and rely on intellectual property.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the great State of Hawaii has been represented in the United States Senate by two of the longest serving Senators, and they happen to have shared the name Daniel. This year, Senator Akaka--with more than 3 decades of service in Congress--now the Senior Senator from Hawaii will return to his native State and enjoy retirement. Senator Akaka has represented the people of Hawaii in a variety of ways. Most recently, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, he has worked tirelessly to support vital programs that provided education, healthcare, housing and other basic services for tribes across the country. Having attended college on the GI bill, he has been an advocate for improving education for all students. He also has been a strong supporter of veterans and a proponent of protections for whistleblowers seeking to expose waste, fraud and abuse in government. On a personal note, I have always appreciated Senator Akaka's strong support for the National Guard, and in particular the Hawaii Guard. His military roots go back to his own distinguished service in World War II. But he was one of the earliest and most senior adopters of the Guard empowerment legislation when I teamed with Senator Bond, Senator Graham, and so many others to enact. Senator Akaka stood with the men and women of the National Guard in demanding representation among the Nation's most senior military advisory body. This stand was not an easy one to take. He was, in fact, the most senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to co-sponsor the Leahy-Graham bill, and his support sent a powerful statement that some of our most knowledgeable Senators with the specific responsibility of overseeing our armed services recognized that it was time to give the Guard a stronger voice. Among his many other achievements, Senator Akaka will be remembered for his strong support of and friendship with the Guard. Senator Akaka has brought a calm and insightful presence to his work and the people of Hawaii are fortunate to have had such a great representative in both the House and the Senate. I wish Senator Akaka and his family the best in his retirement from Congress. Kent Conrad Mr. President, for more than 2 decades, Senator Kent Conrad has represented the people of North Dakota in the United States Senate. I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred senators since I came to the Senate nearly 38 years ago. The list is short for those who are extraordinary both for their talents, and for their personal friendship. Kent Conrad is on that list. In fact, he defines it in many ways. Senator Conrad has reached across the aisle and demonstrated what bipartisanship truly means. Rooted in his days as a tax commissioner in North Dakota, Senator Conrad has been a leading voice in Congress in difficult and complex budget debates. His floor charts are legendary, explaining complicated fiscal matters in terms many others can understand. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, and as a senior member of the Finance Committee, he has been a key player in the fiscal debates that have dominated the discourse in Washington as the country has recovered from the Great Recession. He has led bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit, and helped create the 2007 taskforce with Republican Senator Judd Gregg to address long-term fiscal challenges. Senator Conrad has also been dedicated to advancing American interests abroad. I have been fortunate to travel with Senator Conrad and his wife overseas, most recently to the Eurozone, where he again brought his expertise in economic, budgetary and fiscal policies to the table as we discussed the potential U.S. impacts of the European Union's financial crisis. He has always put North Dakota first, but Senator Conrad has never neglected the needs of other parts of the country. He is a champion of the farm bill, and understands the details and nuances of agriculture commodity programs perhaps better than any other member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Whether fighting for North Dakota's farmers, or fighting for the Nation's fiscal health, he has been a great partner. I was particularly moved by his support for Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene. Senator Conrad has been one of the most important voices in the United States Senate for the past 25 years. He is one of the giants of the Chamber today. We will miss his expertise, but we know our friendships will continue. Both Marcelle and I wish our friends Kent and his wife, Lucy, the best. Joe Lieberman Mr. President, a Senator of 24 years, Senator Joe Lieberman this year retires from this Chamber. He has represented the people of Connecticut for years, first as a State Senator, and then as the State's Attorney General. Senator Lieberman has been a constant voice in national security matters. I worked with him in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and since then, he has served as the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. He has worked to strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the aftermath of disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I worked with Senator Lieberman in 2002 on the E-Government Act, a key privacy law that required the government to improve access to information on the Internet. A chief architect of that bill, it has become an important transparency law and a valuable tool in protecting individual privacy protections. Senator Lieberman has been a dedicated proponent of examining the impacts of climate change. He has worked to find a compromise to move the Senate forward on meaningful climate change and cap-and-trade legislation. And, despite Connecticut's small dairy industry, Senator Lieberman has been a true partner in advancing the needs of dairy farmers in Vermont and across the country. Senator Lieberman has earned the respect of both Democrats and Republicans. Like so many other retiring Senators, he has urged the Senate to pursue avenues of bipartisanship. The bipartisan legacy he leaves is one example we can all follow moving forward. I wish him and his wife, Hadassah, the best in his retirement. Jeff Bingaman Mr. President, born in Texas and raised in New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman for nearly 30 years has represented the State he has been proud to call home. Lawyer, advocate, environmental stalwart these are just a few of the terms that can be used to describe Senator Bingaman. A longtime public servant, Senator Bingaman has served his Nation in the Army Reserves, in his State as an Attorney General, and, since 1983, has served the people of New Mexico in the United States Senate. Along the way, he has earned a reputation for being fair and bipartisan no small feat in today's polarized Congress. Senator Bingaman has been a fierce advocate for the environment, and has worked hard to expand conservation and end tax breaks for big oil companies. I was proud to work with him on legislation to increase the production of biofuels and to modernize the Federal Government's approach to protecting the environment. As chairman of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he has worked tirelessly to advance energy independence, an issue so important to many, including those in New Mexico. A supporter of a comprehensive approach to reforming our immigration system, Senator Bingaman has supported a responsible and thoughtful approach to protecting our Nation's borders. Like me, he opposed ill- advised legislation which was regrettably enacted in 2006 to build electronic and other forms of surveillance along every land and maritime border. A Senator of a southern State, Senator Bingaman opposed the effort to construct a costly fence along our southern border. Senator Bingaman has been a force here in Washington, but he has never lost sight of the needs of the constituents at home that he represents. He has worked to secure Federal funds for critical needs in New Mexico, and for education development and transportation improvements. Jeff's moderate temperament has led to many successes both in the halls of Congress, and in his home State. I wish him and his wife Anne all the best in retirement. Herb Kohl Mr. President, the people of Wisconsin have elected and reelected Senator Herb Kohl to represent them in the United States Senate four times. Since coming to the Senate in 1989, I have been honored to serve with him on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where his commitment to matters involving antitrust, juvenile justice, and technology has afforded us many opportunities to work together. We have partnered in other important areas, too from our states' shared interest in a vibrant and supported dairy industry, to important housing assistance. Everyone likes Senator Kohl. He is a consensus builder, and is always seeking a bipartisan solution. That approach led to a bipartisan investigation in the Judiciary Committee over Ruby Ridge. It led to enactment of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, and economic espionage bills. Senator Kohl has been a constant champion for the nation's dairy farmers from those in Wisconsin to those in Vermont. His Superb Milk House at the Wisconsin State Fair is a hit every year. A tradition he began in 1990, it still sells glasses of milk for just 25 cents. I was delighted to hear he intends to keep the Milk House running even after he leaves the Senate. Wisconsin and Vermont dairy farmers have not always agreed on how best to support the industry, but Senator Kohl's commitment has never wavered. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl has kept the needs of some of the most vulnerable around us the elderly front and center during his time in the Senate. His support for the Housing Assistance Council, which helps improve housing conditions for the rural poor with an emphasis on the poorest of the poor has been steadfast, and I was pleased to work with him to ensure that in an age without earmarks, this important council was qualified to compete for Federal financial support. He has been a longtime partner in rural housing issues a partnership I will miss. Senator Kohl has worked tirelessly for the people of Wisconsin both as a Senator and as a philanthropist. Since 1990, he has provided annual grants totaling $400,000 to Wisconsin students, teachers, and schools through the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Achievement Award Program. When Senator Kohl announced his retirement, he stated that he never believed it was his Senate seat, but that it belonged to the people of Wisconsin, and that is just who Herb Kohl is. Even in retirement, I have no doubt he will remain dedicated to the people of Wisconsin. Serving with him for more than two decades has been an honor and a privilege. The Senate will miss him. Jim Webb Mr. President, although he has served just one term in the U.S. Senate, retiring Senator Jim Webb is no stranger to public service. A highly decorated combat veteran of Vietnam, Jim Webb's prior public service as an Assistant Secretary of Defense and a former Secretary of the Navy uniquely suited him as a fierce defender of our troops serving overseas, and when they come back home. Senator Webb has been a positive force on a number of issues, and particularly through his roles on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. His commitment to our Nations' veterans and to supporting and strengthening our military has been a cornerstone of his Senate career. I worked with Senator Webb on a number of issues in the last 6 years, especially on prison reform and the criminal justice commission. His initiative is something the Senate and our judicial system, should follow and set as a guide. Senator Webb brought a unique perspective to the Senate based on his years of dedicated public service. He has been a powerful advocate for military and veterans' issues and criminal justice reform, all while promoting Virginia's best interests. I wish him and his family the very best in the future. Ben Nelson Mr. President, as a Senator from a rural State, supporting our Nation's farmers is something close to my heart. Senator Ben Nelson shares that commitment, and has been a long-time champion of legislation to protect American agriculture and our Nation's farms in a rough economy. Senator Nelson's work for rural communities has benefited his home State of Nebraska, but his support of agriculture has helped Vermonters, too. These are among the legislative issues on which Senator Nelson has had an impact since he came to the Senate in 2001. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Senator Nelson has been an active participant as we have tried to move the 2012 Farm Bill through Congress. One of the most pressing pieces of legislation before us today, he has fought tirelessly for Nebraska's interests in that bill, as well as the interests of the Nation's agricultural industry as a whole. While he has worked on a number of legislative matters in the last decade, I particularly appreciated Senator Nelson's support for my effort to give the National Guard a seat at the table of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a former Governor. He understood that this multi- year effort was done to recognize that the men and women of the National Guard serve our country with unmatched loyalty and that they and their families make sacrifices every day. He recognized that they are indeed deserving of full representation at the highest levels of the Pentagon. In 2010, Senator Ben Nelson was awarded the Harry S. Truman Award for his commendable work with the Guard. Since the National Guard has taken on an increased role in overseas conflicts, Senators like Ben Nelson have stepped up to give them the recognition and support they deserve. I commend Ben's loyalty to Nebraska and to economic sustainability across the country. His dedication to sustainable energy is rare in our modern political climate. Rather than folding to the issues that divide us and ignoring the future of our farms and environment, Senator Nelson has taken a strong stance on controversial and difficult issues and has managed to open the minds of many of his colleagues with time, bringing people together around the possibility of creating positive change. Through it all, he has kept the needs of his State in mind, even as he has worked to create a brighter future for the entire country. Senator Nelson is an honest man, a level-headed public servant, and a friend to many. True to his roots, he has built a legacy in the Senate that will last after he has moved on from the halls of the Capitol. I wish him the best in his retirement from Congress. Jon Kyl Mr. President, there are many times when those of us in the Senate disagree. It is when we can find ways to work together, across party lines, to advance meaningful legislation that we can really make a difference. One of the things I have always appreciated about Senator Jon Kyl is his commitment to his word. This year will mark his last in the U.S. Senate. I have welcomed his partnership on many issues, from cyber legislation to matters protecting crime victims. He was a key ally in our efforts to make the first meaningful reforms to the Nation's patent system in nearly 60 years. And we have worked together on issues relating to National security and border security. Fewer Senators are more hard working than Jon Kyl. He is a constant presence in the Judiciary Committee, where he has served as the top Republican on the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee. He is active in the Finance Committee. And of course, he holds a key position within his caucus, serving as the Republican Whip. I have, of course, most closely worked with Senator Kyl in his nearly 2 decades of service on the Judiciary Committee. There, he has championed a number of important issues, from crime victims' rights to antiterrorism legislation. We have been close partners on intellectual property legislation, from patent reform to copyright and trademark protections. And, even in the most contentious of national security issues, we have worked to find common ground on such issues as the PATRIOT Act. On Capitol Hill, Senator Kyl is known throughout the Senate for his dedication and work ethic. He is a great ally and a formidable adversary; in Congress, there is often no higher praise. He is a good personal friend and, I wish him and his family all the best as he takes on his next challenge. Richard Lugar Mr. President, I have served with hundreds of Senators in my nearly 38 years representing Vermont in Washington. Few embody the statesmanship that you find in Senator Richard Lugar. For more than 36 years, Senator Lugar has represented the State of Indiana in the United States Senate--the longest-serving Republican Senator here today. It has been an honor, a privilege and a joy to work with him to advance so many important legislative issues. Senator Lugar exemplifies the ideal of bipartisanship that is too often lacking today in Washington. Although we come from different political views, Senator Lugar and I worked shoulder-to-shoulder to reach across the aisle to find compromise and common ground on two Farm Bills--the Leahy-Lugar bill, and the Lugar-Leahy bill. That collaborative effort, which led to reforms at the Department of Agriculture resulting in the savings of billions of dollars, is an example of how well the Senate can function when bipartisanship is the order of business. Whether he chaired the Agriculture Committee, or I did, we always found a way to work together. Perhaps Senator Lugar is most well-known for yet another bipartisan effort, the 1991 Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction. Nunn-Lugar was enacted to protect Americans from the threat of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Ever since it became law, Senator Lugar has continued his efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear annihilation. In 2007, after a trip to Russia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine, Senator Lugar and then-Senator Barack Obama crafted the Lugar-Obama Proliferation and Threat Reduction Initiative to decrease the number of hidden traditional weapons around the world. Senator Lugar's ability to build strong relationships with party opposites such as President Obama resulted in legislation that benefits citizens of Indiana, but also the entire Nation. As a leading member and former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar has championed human rights around the world. Most recently he advocated aggressively for ratification of the bipartisan Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A recognized leader in international affairs, Senator Lugar has supported causes eradicating hunger, to combatting terrorism wherever it occurs. He has promoted sound, reasonable immigration reforms to encourage the best and brightest to come to America. And he has warned of the catastrophic risks of climate change. Earlier this year, Senator Lugar and I reached a pair of milestones together. I was honored to cast my 14,000th vote in the United States Senate. I was delighted that Senator Lugar, on the same vote, reached the 13,000 marker. Ours has been a partnership of more than three decades, and to share this milestone with Senator Lugar was a memory I will cherish. A couple of years ago, Dick and I found ourselves sitting down together in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, speaking with a reporter about the importance of bipartisanship in Congress. We both recalled with fondness our earliest days in the Senate, sitting on the farthest ends of the dais, and struggling to hear what the most senior members of the panel were saying. We suspected--no doubt correctly-- that this was not happening by accident. From those days sitting together was born a friendship that has spanned three decades. In his farewell in this Chamber, Senator Lugar cautioned that many in Congress ``have not lived up to the expectations of our constituents to make excellence in governance our top priority.'' Every day in this Chamber, Dick Lugar made excellence his top priority. He is a pillar of the Senate, a mentor to many, and a role model to those to come. And I will miss my friend. Olympia Snowe Mr. President, in today's U.S. Senate, moderates are few. At the end of this Congress, we will lose another: Senator Olympia Snowe, who has served the State of Maine in the U.S. Senate for nearly 2 decades. She has spent nearly her entire adult life in public service, and the people of Maine have revered her dedication to her home State and to civic engagement. Just the 23rd woman to serve in the United States Senate, Senator Snowe has risen through the ranks in her tenure in this body, most recently serving as the top Republican on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. There she has focused on promoting women in small business. She was instrumental in establishing Women's Business Centers through the Small Business Administration, a network of nearly 100 centers designed to level the playing field for women looking to start a small business. Most recently, she has worked to advance legislation to establish a task force specifically devoted to women entrepreneurs. Senator Snowe has been a great friend to the environment as well. She has worked closely with me to protect our national forests and environment. She has partnered with me to strengthen the Forest Legacy Program--important to both Vermont and Maine--as well as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. She has been a stalwart advocate for the Community Development Block Grant program, and for years, she and I teamed together to protect this important community development program. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The shared challenges of our States--rural, New England States have given us many reasons to work together, and our partnership in these issues is one that I will miss. Notably, Senator Snowe, at a time when so many simply tow the party line, never feared voting her conscience over her political affiliation. Her support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which spurred development amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, was instrumental in funneling necessary resources to the States. She supported advancing comprehensive health care reform legislation to the Senate floor, so the Senate as a whole could debate the issue. And she has stood up for women in important health care choices. When Senator Snowe announced earlier this year that she intended to retire, she lamented the partisan shift she has seen in Congress. During her long career in public service, Senator Snowe put her State and the Nation first. It's a lesson we can all follow. I wish Olympia the best in her retirement and I will truly miss serving with her. Her farewell speech to the Senate should be required reading in every High School and college--civics and government classes. Kay Bailey Hutchison Mr. President, when the 112th Congress adjourns, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will retire, having been the 22nd woman to serve in the United States Senate. With nearly 20 years of service to this Chamber, Senator Hutchison has been a pioneer in her home State of Texas. The first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from that State, her record of public service began long before she came to Washington. Senator Hutchison's dedication to her constituents, and to the advancement of the Nation, has been easy to see. When she helped to establish the Academy of Medicine, Engineering, and Science of Texas, TAMEST in 2004, she put a spotlight on the importance of encouraging advancements in science and of supporting research and development. She has understood that protecting our Nation's ability to innovate is as vital to our economic security as anything else. I am proud to have worked with Senator Hutchison on a variety of pieces of legislation over the years, having served with her on several subcommittees of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Among our greatest achievements, I believe was our partnership on federal AMBER Alert legislation, which won unanimous support in the Senate and which was enacted in 2003. The AMBER Alert Act was a signature achievement, and an example of what can be done when partisanship is cast aside, and we work together. Senator Hutchison has worked tirelessly to advocate for her State and for the good of the Nation. I wish her and her family all the best. Scott Brown Mr. President, Senator Scott Brown came to the Senate in an untraditional manner: winning a special election to fill the seat left by one of the giants of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. While his tenure has been just 3 years, I have appreciated Senator Brown's willingness to work across the aisle on two very important issues: reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, and working to end human trafficking. It happens that I have authored legislation to address these two very issues, and so it has been through the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act that I have seen Senator Brown take a dedicated approach to protecting victims of violence. He is a cosponsor of both these bills, a strong supporter of the goals behind them, and a vocal proponent of their enactment. Senator Brown has also been a friend of National Guard. Himself a Guardsman for over 30 years, he was one 68 cosponsors of my Guard Empowerment Act, to give the head of the National Guard a seat with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where decisions are made every day about our Nation's military, including the National Guard and Reserve. As a Guardsman himself, he understands the strains placed on families here at home when the Guard, like any unit of the military, is deployed, as has happened so many times in the last decade. I appreciated Senator Brown's support on this important law. Senator Brown has charted his own path in his short time here in the Senate, and I expect the ventures he undertook while serving here will continue. I wish him and his family the best.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, it granted the Government sweeping new electronic surveillance powers which, if abused or misused, could impinge on the privacy rights of Americans. Congress enacted these controversial authorities with the understanding that it would re-examine these provisions within four years, and determine whether to allow these authorities to continue. While there is no question that the surveillance powers established in the FISA Amendments Act have proven to be extraordinarily important for our national security, it is equally clear to me that those broad powers must continue to come with rigorous oversight and strong privacy protections. That is why the Senate should adopt the Senate substitute amendment that would allow the Government to continue using these authorities, but for a period of time that ensures strong and independent oversight. This amendment was considered and reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee last July. I urge Senators to support this reasonable and commonsense measure. I call on all Senators who talk about accountability and oversight to join with us to adopt this better approach to ensuring our security and our privacy. Many of us will remember that the FISA Amendments Act was originally passed to clean up what one Bush administration lawyer called the ``legal mess'' of the warrantless wiretapping program, which undermined the privacy rights and civil liberties of countless Americans. More than that, the warrantless wiretapping program undermined the public's trust in our Government, and in the intelligence community's ability to police itself. During the debate on the FISA Amendments Act in 2007 and 2008, I worked with others on the Judiciary Committee to ensure that important oversight, accountability, and privacy protections were put into place, including express prohibitions on the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons or any individual located here in the United States, as well as a prohibition against the practice of so-called ``reverse targeting.'' I am convinced that the oversight and accountability provisions that we included in the original legislation have helped to prevent the abuse of these surveillance tools. Based on my review of information provided by the Government, and after a series of classified briefings, I have not seen evidence that the law has been abused, or that the communications of U.S. persons are being intentionally targeted. But let's be absolutely clear, my conclusion is based on the information I have seen to date, and current compliance does not guarantee future compliance. We must not relax our oversight efforts, and I believe that there is more that can be done to protect against future abuse and misuse. In June, after the Senate Intelligence Committee originated the Senate bill to reauthorize and extend FISA, Senator Grassley and I asked for a sequential referral, just as I did in 2008, to allow the Judiciary Committee to consider and improve this important legislation. The bill that was approved by the Intelligence Committee provided for a general and unfettered extension of the expiring provisions until June 2017. I hoped that the Senate Judiciary Committee would improve on that, and we did. I worked with Senator Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to craft a compromise to shorten the sunset to 2015 and to add some accountability and oversight provisions. I appreciated the Senator from California's commitment to helping to improve this sensitive and important legislation and her strong words of support for the Senate Judiciary Committee bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted the substitute and reported the Senate bill to the Senate promptly last July. That is the bill that I am offering, the Senate bill. There is no reason for us to merely rubberstamp the House bill. We have a better bill with better provisions and more accountability and oversight. I am pleased that Senators Durbin, Franken, Shaheen, Akaka, and Coons have joined me as cosponsors of this amendment. The Senate bill that the Judiciary Committee adopted, and that I am offering to improve on the House bill that has been brought before us, provides for a shorter sunset of the expiring surveillance authorities. The House bill's sunset is longer than that adopted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and unnecessarily extended. The Senate bill I offer provides for extending FISA authorities, but would sunset them in June 2015. This will allow the existing programs to continue but ensures that we revisit them in a timely fashion as more information becomes available. It would also align with the June 2015 sunset of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, thereby enabling Congress to evaluate all of the expiring surveillance provisions of FISA together. This is an approach that Chairman Feinstein and I both supported during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization debate in 2011, along with many members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. This is the position the intelligence community and the administration supported then and as recently as last year. It is the right position and the right sunset, and that is why the Senate bill should include it and will if my amendment is adopted. As we have seen through our experience with the USA PATRIOT Act, sunsets are important oversight tools. Sunsets force Congress to re- examine carefully the surveillance powers that have been authorized. If we know we have to actually look at it because it is going to run out, what happens is amazing--Senators in both parties actually look at it. More importantly, sunsets force the administration to provide full and accurate information to justify to Congress the reauthorization of significant authorities. Any administration is going to be willing to kick the ball down the road if they don't have to do it; if they have a sunset, they do. The last thing we want is for the NSA and the FBI to take for granted that they will have these powers, especially when the misuse or abuse of these powers could significantly impact the constitutional liberties of Americans. Likewise, we must never take for granted our constitutional liberties, and we should not shy away from our duty as Senators to protect against any such misuse or abuse. I acknowledge and appreciate those in the intelligence community who work very hard to ensure compliance with our laws and Constitution. But it is also important to note that there has never been a comprehensive review of these authorities by an independent Inspector General that would provide a complete perspective on how these authorities are being used, and whether they are being used properly. The DOJ Inspector General recently completed a review of the FBI's implementation of the FISA Amendments Act, but this was limited in scope--not only because it was just limited to the FBI, and not any other part of the intelligence community, but also because it was limited in scope to the period ending in early 2010. Notably, this was the first report ever issued by the DOJ Inspector General regarding the FBI's use of Section 702 authorities, and it was issued in September 2012--after the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees reported their bills, and after the House voted to pass its clean extension. Even more troubling is the fact that we still have not received a report from the NSA Inspector General that fully assesses the NSA's compliance with its targeting and minimization procedures, or the limitations we put in place to protect the privacy of Americans. I am told that a preliminary report on the adequacy of the management controls at the NSA is being finalized--but it is just that: a preliminary report, and not an actual, final, comprehensive, or definitive assessment of whether NSA analysts are complying with the procedures and rules that they have put into place. Indeed, the NSA Inspector General's office has acknowledged that there is more work to be done, and that this review--once completed--will just be a first step. Moreover, as with the DOJ Inspector General's report, this review is limited just to a single agency, and does not incorporate any review or assessment of any information-sharing that might be taking place. To address the limitations faced by the IGs for individual agencies, our Senate bill as embodied in my substitute amendment adds some commonsense improvements to the oversight provisions in the FISA Amendments Act, including a comprehensive independent review by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community was established in 2010 and has the unique ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of the surveillance activities across the intelligence community, rather than just a limited view of a single agency. An independent review by the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community could answer some remaining questions about the implementation of the FISA Amendments Act, particularly with respect to the protection of the privacy rights of U.S. persons. I also believe that an unclassified summary of such an audit should be made public in order to provide increased accountability directly to the American people. These are reasonable improvements to the law that I urge all Senators to support. We often hear Senators speak about the need for vigorous and independent oversight of the Executive Branch, the need to support independent inspectors general who are not beholden to a particular agency, and the need for Congress to conduct its own independent reviews as a check on the power of the Executive. So I ask those same Senators this question: When Congress has authorized the use of expansive and powerful surveillance tools that have the potential to impact so significantly the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, isn't this exactly the type of situation that calls for that sort of vigorous and independent oversight? Put simply, someone needs to be watching the watchers--and watching them like a hawk. I call upon all Senators, on both sides of the aisle, who talk about accountability and oversight to join with us to adopt this better approach to ensuring our security and our privacy by adopting the Senate bill as embodied in the substitute amendment. No one can argue that shortening the sunset or adding oversight provisions somehow hampers the Government's ability to fight terrorism or somehow harms national security. That is not true. All Senators should know that neither the 2015 sunset date nor the added oversight provisions have any operational impact on the work of the intelligence community. No one--I repeat, no one from the administration has ever said to me that these provisions cause any operational problems for the intelligence community, and to suggest otherwise now is simply not accurate. In fact, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported its bill last year that bill had exactly the same sunset date of June 2015 that is in the substitute amendment. I was encouraged that Senator Feinstein supported this 2015 sunset date when the Judiciary Committee approved this substitute amendment, and noted then that this substitute amendment does not cause any operational problems for the intelligence community. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a simple choice. We can enable the intelligence community to continue using these authorities until 2015, while adding commonsense improvements that will help us to conduct vigorous oversight. Or the Senate can abdicate its responsibilities and rubberstamp the House bill that extends these powerful authorities for another five years, without a single improvement in oversight or accountability--even though we may not have all the information we need to make an informed determination. As an American, and as a Vermonter, the choice is simple for me. We have an obligation to ensure that these expansive surveillance authorities are accompanied by safeguards. We can fulfill our duty to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American public, while continuing to provide the intelligence community with tools to help keep America safe. That is what the Senate bill as embodied in the substitute amendment accomplishes. I urge Senators to choose this balanced, commonsense approach, and to support adopt the Senate substitute to the over-expansive House bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a matter I care a great deal about. I am concerned that we are rushing to rubberstamp a House bill that is going to extend the surveillance authorities of the FISA Amendments Act for another 5 years. My amendment would allow the authorities to continue, but it would give a lot better and more timely oversight. We passed this--and it was not on a last-minute thing--out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July. We acted quickly so that we would not be acting in this last-minute manner. This has no operational impact on the intelligence community, but it does ensure the strongest of oversight. I hope Senators will support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted, by voice vote, to approve the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. As it always does, the NDAA included a number of important provisions, including critical authorizations for our troops in uniform, for essential defense programs to promote and protect our national security both at home and abroad, and for important programs that keep ours the greatest military in the world. The conference report approved today also includes two important provisions which I was proud to support. The Dale Long Public Safety Officers Benefits Improvements Act will fill a gap in existing law and extend the Federal Public Safety Officers/Benefits program to paramedics and emergency medical technicians who work or volunteer for nonprofit ambulance services, and their families, when they are disabled or killed in the line of duty. And important measures relating to Department of Defense law enforcement officers are also included. While I am pleased this conference report includes important elements such as these, I remain deeply concerned about several troubling provisions that remain in the law relating to the indefinite detention of individuals without charge or trial and the conference report drops the Senate amendment we adopted to protect against abuses. The indefinite detention and mandatory detention provisions that were enacted in last year's defense authorization bill undermine our Nation's fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, and I have worked to eliminate or fix these flawed provisions. Earlier this month, during debate on the Senate bill, we took a positive step toward fixing these flawed provisions by adopting an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that I supported to clarify that our government cannot detain indefinitely any citizen or legal permanent resident apprehended in the United States. More than two- thirds of the Senate voted in favor of this amendment, and I viewed this as a constructive part of our efforts to undo some of the damage from last year's NDAA. During the Senate debate on the detention provisions this year, I stated again my belief that the vital protections of our Constitution extend to all persons here in the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Nonetheless, I voted for this amendment to affirm that indefinite detention has no place in our justice system. Inexplicably, however, the Feinstein amendment was stripped from the final bill during conference negotiations between the House and Senate. Despite such broad Senate support for the Feinstein amendment, the conference report no longer expressly reaffirms that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in America cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Instead, we are left with the status quo of restrictions and prohibitions on the transfer of detainees that leaves us no closer to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo once and for all. I have repeatedly said that I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial. I fought against the Bush administration policies that led to the current situation, with indefinite detention as the de facto policy. I opposed President Obama's executive order in March 2011 that contemplated indefinite detention, and I helped lead the efforts against the detention-related provisions in last year's NDAA. A policy of indefinite detention has no place in the justice system of any democracy--let alone the greatest democracy in the world. The American justice system is the envy of the world, and a regime of indefinite detention diminishes the credibility of this great Nation around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for engaging in such conduct, and as new governments in the midst of establishing legal systems look to us as a model of justice. Indefinite detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I have pledged to uphold since my years as a prosecutor and in our senatorial oath to defend the Constitution. That is why I have opposed and will continue to oppose indefinite detention. In addition to failing to rectify the indefinite detention provisions from last year's NDAA in the conference report, I also continue to be deeply disturbed by the mandatory military detention provisions that were included in last year's NDAA through Section 1022. In the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist threats, we should give our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need. These limitations abandon our full arsenal of powers. I remain concerned that the mandatory military detention requirements are overly broad and threaten core constitutional principles. Once sacrificed, our treasured constitutional protections are not easily restored. After all, the policy directive of this President can be undone by a future administration. I find the detention provisions enacted through last year's NDAA and the failure to fix them this year deeply troublesome. I am also concerned about the extension of overly burdensome restrictions and conditions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo, even those who have already been found to have had no connection to terrorism. These provisions do not represent Vermont values, they do not represent American values, and they have no place in this world. As a result of the failure of the conferees to seriously address these fundamental wrongdoings and support the principles of our Constitution, I am unable to support final passage of this year's NDAA. Moving forward, as I did last year, I hope to foster a broader discussion about these issues and work to make concrete changes to protect American values and champion the rule of law. We need a bipartisan effort to guarantee that the United States remains the model for the rule of law to the world. There is one additional provision that has been excluded from this conference report that is of concern to me and a number of Senators and Congressmen. Both the House and Senate approved in their defense authorization bills language to freeze Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve manpower and force structure in the wake of the Air Force's announced intention to disproportionately target the National Guard as it prepared for Budget Control Act cuts. I joined Senator Graham, Representative Hunter and Representative Walz in leading a letter to the conferees signed by 87 members of Congress in support of continuing the freeze and preserving the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force which was included in the Senate-passed Defense Authorization Act. I was surprised to see that the conferees rewrote these provisions, instead adopting in this conference report an Air Force proposal that had been neither reviewed nor debated by either chamber. While the final conference report does preserve the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, I believe it does not go far enough to protect the fundamental needs and strength of our Air National Guard. I will continue to work with others here in Congress who believe, as I do, that the Guard represents much of what is best about our country's military.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. On November 28, 2012, the Senate overwhelmingly passed my legislation, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 as an amendment to the bill the Senate will likely pass today, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. At that time, by a margin of 85 to 11, the Senate sent a strong message of support to the men and women across America who serve their fellow citizens as public safety officers. The Senate made clear that this important policy, in place since 1976, is worthy of our continued attention and our efforts to make it better for those it is intended to benefit. I thank the 85 Senators who voted in favor of my amendment on November 28, and for standing with first responders across the United States. As the Senate gives its consideration to final approval of the National Defense Authorization Act, I want to take a few moments to discuss what my amendment contains, and the intent behind the various provisions within it. Before I do, however, in light of the terrible tragedy in Newtown, CT that occurred on December 14, let me take a moment to recognize the first responders of Newtown and all who answered the call on that terrible day. In the midst of such incredible sadness, let us recognize the men and women who answered that call, who put the well-being of schoolchildren, teachers, and staff ahead of their own safety and entered that school to face the unknown and do whatever they could to help. And let us recognize those who stood bravely to render medical aid and give comfort to others amidst unspeakable violence and sorrow. In recent days, a quote by the late children's educator and minister Fred Rogers has been shared widely among Americans searching for some light within the darkness of what occurred in Newtown. In the quotation, he recalls how in the face of something frightening, his mother used to tell him, ``Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping''. He said then that he was comforted ``by realizing that there are still so many helpers--so many caring people in the world.'' His words exemplify our nation's first responders. I know that this tragedy affects them just as deeply as it affects all of us and in some ways that are difficult for us to fully understand. But the dedication and bravery of these men and women is something that I want to acknowledge and commend. It is their determination and the actions of first responders across the country every day that serve as the foundation and inspiration for the Federal policy we strengthen for them today. The centerpiece of my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act is a measure to fill a gap in the Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, law, which was exposed following the tragic death of a decorated emergency medical technician who served the community of Bennington, VT. Dale Long was killed in the line of duty in a traffic accident while responding to an emergency call. When his surviving family members looked in to filing a claim with the PSOB office at the Justice Department, they learned that a technicality made it impossible for the PSOB office to review Dale Long's claim. Under the PSOB law, in order for an emergency medical technician serving the public to be covered, he or she must be part of a public agency, as defined in the law. In Vermont, and elsewhere in the United States, particularly in rural areas, there are ambulance companies that do not have a formalized relationship with a state or municipal government, and therefore are not considered a public agency under the law. This technicality meant that Dale Long, and others like him across the country who serve their communities as part of a private, non- profit rescue company, subject to the same risks and stresses, did not have the security of coverage under the PSOB program. Dale Long's tragedy exposed this gap, and I introduced legislation to fix it. Mr. Long worked for the Bennington Rescue Squad, a private, non- profit entity serving Bennington, VT. The Bennington Rescue Squad has been serving the people of Bennington, VT since 1963, and provides paramedic 911 services to that community. It is an integral part of the public safety infrastructure of Bennington, Vermont. Similarly situated men and women who serve others as a part of private, non-profit rescue squads should be placed in the same position that all other EMTs, firefighters, and police officers are relative to the PSOB program. Today, after nearly three years of work in Congress, and through the tireless advocacy of so many in the public safety community like the American Ambulance Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Firefighters, and many others, I expect that this measure will be enacted. This is their law. The other provisions in this legislation were developed around the provision I drafted to support Dale Long's survivors and all who may find themselves in similar circumstances. In cooperation with House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, I assembled a host of other measures to make the PSOB program more equitable, and more efficient for the families of our fallen first responders and those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty. Before describing those measures, and the intent behind them, it is important to consider the overarching intent behind the original enactment of the PSOB law. In 1976, Congress enacted the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act in order to accomplish several policy goals. First, Congress sought to provide uniformity to a disparate system for first responder benefits across the country and to ensure that irrespective of the benefits provided in a state, all first responders, regardless of where they lived, would benefit from meaningful assistance. In doing so, Congress also intended to ensure that the Federal PSOB benefit was to be provided in addition to any other death or disability benefits that may be provided by a state. This policy was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1986 case of Rose v. Arkansas State Police. There, in affirming Congress' intent to protect the Federal benefit from reduction by the provision of a state benefit, the Court identified that Congress wished to address the inadequacy of death benefits paid to first responders in some states. At the time of the original law's enactment, Congress also believed and intended that a uniform Federal benefit, irrespective of and immune from reduction by any state benefit, would encourage recruitment and retention of qualified public safety officers. The United States Court of Federal Claims, in upholding the award of a PSOB benefit that had been wrongly denied, wrote in Demutiis v. United States: ``Recognizing the extraordinary risks incurred by officers in serving the public, Congress provided for these death benefits not only as a matter of equity, but also to promote the recruitment and retention of safety officers as part of the national fight against crime.'' This incentive, central to congressional policy, is only meaningful and effective when the process for providing these benefits is efficient and free from unnecessary delay or dispute. Congress sought with the law to recognize the very real risks that public safety officers face on a daily basis--whether fighting a fire, apprehending a criminal, or providing lifesaving medical assistance during an emergency situation. The House Judiciary Committee, in its report at the time of PSOB's original enactment, noted that there was a moral component to this program as well. Then, the House Judiciary Committee characterized the original Act as Congress' ``recognition of society's moral obligation to compensate the families of those individuals who daily risk their lives to preserve peace and to protect our lives and property.'' I agreed then, and I believe now as strongly as ever that supporting our first responders is the right thing to do. The passage of this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 will add efficiencies to claims processing and expand benefits available under the program, and will further and reaffirm Congress' original intent. This legislation, which the House of Representatives has approved, and which the Senate now considers, makes several important changes to the broader PSOB law, including the Hometown Heroes law, which I was proud to author in 2003. I will take a moment now to discuss those provisions. The hometown heroes law makes first responders who have died as the result of a heart attack or stroke in the line of duty, or within a discrete time period following the period while the first responder was on duty, eligible for a death or disability benefit under the PSOB law. The amendment we consider strengthens this law. It does so by adding to the list of qualifying health incidents ``vascular rupture,'' thus broadening coverage under the hometown heroes law. Under current law, in order to be eligible for a benefit, an officer must have suffered a heart attack or stroke. There are, unfortunately, cases on hold within the PSOB office that are not being processed due to the presence of a vascular rupture, which is nevertheless a health event consistent with the type of stressful activity associated with the work that first responders do every day. The hometown heroes statute recognizes those situations where an officer engages in ``nonroutine, stressful or strenuous physical'' activity. This definition and its implementing regulations have been the source of concern for many in the first responder community. ``Nonroutine, stressful or strenuous'' activity is defined in the law to exclude ``actions of a clerical, administrative, or nonmanual nature.'' Thus the law contains a very limited universe of activities that are expressly excluded from the hometown heroes definition or what type of activity is covered. As author of the hometown heroes law, it was my intent to make sure that those first responders, who suffer a catastrophic health event while on duty or shortly following a period of duty, were covered. No one should doubt the stresses encountered every day by our first responders. If we know one thing about the work that our first responders do, it is that it is unpredictable and is very difficult to characterize as routine. Congress intended that the language delineating the type of activity that would give rise to hometown heroes claim be construed broadly and the addition of ``vascular rupture'' to the list of qualifying health events underscores that intent. In 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine the Department of Justice implementation of the hometown heroes law. This hearing followed many calls from the first responder community to provide oversight on its implementation. I believe this hearing helped to move the needed regulations along, and served to remind relevant officials that this undertaking and policy was important to the legislative branch. It served to reaffirm that at bottom Congress was seeking with this law to benefit first responders and that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the claimant consistent with the overarching congressional policy. Congress did not intend for lawyers at the Department of Justice to argue with claimants over the meaning of ``nonroutine, stressful or strenuous physical'' activity. Anyone who has served as a public safety officer knows that there is nothing ``routine'' about the work. From responding to an emergency scene to render assistance, performing a traffic stop that can go very wrong in an instant, maintaining custody of inmates, or engaging in a training or fitness exercise, ``nonroutine, stressful or strenuous physical'' activities are expressed clearly in the statute, and Congress understood, and intended, that the vast majority of line-of-duty work in which first responders engage is ``nonroutine, stressful or strenuous physical'' activity. As the statute makes abundantly clear, with its limited exceptions, activities that would be considered routine, and not stressful or strenuous physical activity, consist generally of clerical or administrative activities. Indeed, given the Hometown Heroes statutory presumption, which directs PSOB fact finders to presume that a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture is an injury sustained in the line of duty for purposes of a PSOB benefit, Congress made the judgment and intends for such claims to be weighted heavily in favor of providing the benefit. Under the law, the presumption in favor of the benefit may only be overcome when PSOB fact finders are presented with evidence that factors other than duty-related activities led to a stroke, heart attack, or vascular rupture. The legislation we consider today refines the existing statutory standard to emphasize that the ``mere presence'' of cardiovascular risk factors in a fallen first responder is not enough to overcome this presumption. That is, simply because a public safety officer who suffers a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture may have had present risk factors or other indicators of the presence of cardiovascular disease, that is not enough to overcome the strong presumption in favor of eligibility. Nothing in this legislation or the refinement to the Hometown Heroes law should be construed as a departure from this presumption. Indeed, the intent of this provision is to clarify that the burden to overcome the presumption is a heavy one. As Congress recognized in 2003 with the enactment of the hometown heroes law and its statutory presumption, serving as a first responder presents physical and psychological challenges unlike any other occupation in civil society. In order to expedite claims processing for first responders and to reduce administrative costs within the PSOB office, the legislation we consider contains a measure to include a ``medical or claims examiner'' within the definition of hearing examiner. If enacted, this measure, one resource for the fact finder, is to be used carefully and limited to those instances where the fact finder determines that a ``medical [or claims] examiner'' within a medical specialty or subspecialty may provide in-person examinations or record reviews to gain greater insight regarding a claim. In turn, that examiner will submit a report to the fact finder for consideration. Nothing in this measure, or the House Report's analysis of the companion bill H.R.4018, should be construed to remove the discretion of the fact finder. The fact finder must weigh the totality of the evidence, including reports of independent treating physicians whose experience and expertise regarding an officer's medical history and current condition are invaluable for a greater understanding of the case. The legislation further amends the PSOB statute to clarify and restate existing practice and procedure that PSOB payments shall be made ``only upon determination by the Bureau that the facts legally warrant payments.'' Without question the Bureau has the duty to responsibly administer the PSOB program according to the law and regulations. Concurrent with this duty is the Bureau's responsibility to survivors: the Bureau must use its best and appropriate efforts to ensure that, where the facts warrant payment, claimants shall receive the benefit. This means nothing more than that it is the PSOB office, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, as the entity responsible for administering PSOB claims, which is charged to make determinations on claims. This does not approve or compel PSOB fact finders to abdicate to legal counsel their responsibilities to decide claims. The claims process itself in most instances should be sufficient for PSOB fact finders to make the determination required, on the facts presented, under the law. This provision is not an invitation in any way, absent evidence of fraud, to subject claims to unnecessary, protracted legal or medical review. Nor should this provision be construed to alter the well-established standard of review applicable to the claims process, that where the facts of a case ``more likely than not'' warrant payment of a claim, the benefit should be approved. This is a crucial aspect of the administration of the PSOB benefit. And I would take a moment to respectfully disagree with language contained in the House Judiciary Committee's report on the legislation we pass today. Language in the House Report to accompany H.R.4018, which appears to require the Department of Justice `` to objectively test or verify each material factual assertion made and obtain relevant information beyond what claimants may provide'' in order to discharge its legal duty, is inconsistent with the intent of the PSOB law. I would note my strong disagreement with this language, which fails to appreciate Congress' original intent in enacting this law and should therefore be rejected. When Congress enacted this law in 1976, it did not intend then, and does not today, that this benefit program be an adversarial proceeding for the families of fallen public safety officers or those public safety officers who have suffered a career-ending disability in the line of duty. While the PSOB program has been amended many times over the years to expand coverage to survivors and the public safety community, in too many ways the program has become administratively more complex and cumbersome for families to receive the benefits due them. The hearing record for the Senate Judiciary Committee's examination of this program on October 4, 2007 is replete with testimony concerning the frustrations and unnecessary challenges too many surviving families have faced. Should it be enacted, the legislation we consider today and this statement reaffirm the original purpose of the PSOB law which, in its simplicity and true to Congress' intent, clearly directed that in any case in which the Bureau of Justice Assistance determines that a public safety officer has died of a personal injury in the line of duty, the Bureau shall pay a benefit. Federal officials, who administer the PSOB program, like all Federal officials involved with providing financial assistance, are under both an ethical and a legal duty to administer PSOB benefits in a manner consistent with the controlling law and regulations. Nothing in this legislation subjects Federal or contract employees determining PSOB claims to any greater liability or penalties than are currently applicable to other government employees. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with oversight responsibilities over the Department of Justice, I have confidence that the men and women of the Justice Department who administer PSOB claims execute their responsibilities with the highest level of integrity, and will continue to do so in the future with the discretion that the law provides. Justice Department officials should be confident that the good work that they do relative to this program, even where the process of review may question their judgment or conclusions, is subject to a law that gives them the freedom to exercise their discretion fairly and impartially. The operative standard for claims evaluation under the PSOB law is one of ``more likely than not'', and this standard by its terms allows ample room for PSOB fact finders to exercise broad discretion. Indeed, it is worth recognizing that the courts have reversed the denial of PSOB benefits on at least eight occasions. I am aware of no instance, however, where the approval of a PSOB benefit was overturned or determined to have been in error. Let me conclude with a few general points about this important program. Congress enacted this law in 1976 because it recognized then, as we do now, that the welfare of America's public safety officers, and their families, is worthy of our support. Congress has acted over the last 36 years on several occasions to expand the law. The PSOB program was designed with that overarching principle in mind, and the Department of Justice, in administering the program, must make every effort to ensure that the families of fallen officers and those disabled are provided with the benefit to which they are entitled under the law in an efficient manner. As the Department of Justice moves forward to implement the improvements that Congress considers today, I look forward to working with officials within the Department's Office of Justice Programs as they carry out their work. And I look forward to seeing these measures put into practice swiftly and with the best interests in mind of the men and woman across the country who serve all of us every day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the majority leader indicated that when we have the point of order, I or my designee be recognized. I ask that the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, be the designee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spent time on the Senate floor this week talking about the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to address Hurricane Sandy. But today I remind the Congress of another impending disaster. Unlike Sandy, but exactly like the fiscal cliff crisis, this is a man-made disaster that can and must be averted by December 31. Unfortunately, this calamity has been artificially created and forced upon us by forces of stalemate and obstruction in the House of Representatives. This disaster involves the Farm Bill and what happens on the first of January if the House continues to hold the Senate-passed Farm Bill hostage. The American people have heard again and again about the fiscal cliff. Today, once again, I am talking about the ``dairy cliff'' that awaits us if the House continues to block action on the Farm Bill. A full six months have passed since the Senate approved a strong Farm Bill with bipartisan support. We came together in the Senate and passed a 5-year Farm Bill that contains some of the most significant reforms in agricultural policy in a generation, while providing $23 billion in real deficit reduction. After we passed the Senate Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee held a markup of their bill in July and passed a bipartisan bill out of Committee. Regrettably, that is where their work ended. The leadership in the House has refused to even bring their bill to the floor for debate, something that has not happened in the past 50 years. Inaction by the House caused the Farm Bill to expire on September 30, terminating authorizations for a long list of important programs that benefit farmers, rural communities, consumers, and the 16 million Americans whose jobs depend on agriculture. Chairwoman Stabenow was on the floor earlier this week to point out the fact that is has been 80 days since the Farm Bill expired. That is 80 days that our farm families and small businesses have been waiting and holding their breath. This is artificially generating untold uncertainty that is costing farmers, consumers and our entire economy in very real and highly unpredictable ways. This not only is unprecedented, it is legislative malpractice. It threatens great harm to the Nation and the American people. And it is wrong. Yet the Nation, including Vermont dairy farmers, incredibly enough are now on the verge of plunging over the dairy cliff. By failing to even consider a Farm Bill, the House leadership has driven us straight to the edge of this dairy cliff and now is refusing to turn the wheel or put a foot on the brake. This is a pointless and dangerous game of chicken, dragging all Americans along for the ride. On January 1--a mere 11 days from now--the final shoe will drop when the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be required to implement what is known as ``permanent law'' for our Nation's dairy industry. The Secretary of Agriculture and his staff have been--quite literally-- dusting off old paper files and mimeographed notes from the 1940s and 50s to review the Agricultural Act of 1949. Without a new Farm Bill, on January 1 the Nation will be forced to revert to the parity pricing that was part of that long-ago law that was passed a few short years after the end of World War II. The House's inaction on its own version of the Farm Bill, and its obstruction of the Senate bill--a Senate bill that saves taxpayers $23 billion--will force the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a law from the middle of the last century. This archaic law will force the Federal Government to spend billions of dollars to buy and store dairy products to help raise the price of fluid milk for dairy farmers. The Secretary will have to keep spending until he is able to raise the price of fluid milk by 60 or 70 percent. This is pointless and wasteful Federal spending. And it is even worse than that. Taking those products off the market will drive up consumer prices--prices that struggling families must pay, from coast to coast, just to put food on the table-- as early as next month. And that's not the end of this needless waste. The Department of Agriculture then will have to pay still more taxpayers' dollars to store all of these dairy products. So rather than pass the Senate Farm Bill that saves $23 billion, the House is choosing to put the Secretary of Agriculture on a path to having to spend billions of dollars on dairy products, paying to store those products, and driving the price of milk through the ceiling for consumers. This is not even to mention the effects this could have on world prices and the harm it will cause for the vulnerable millions worldwide who rely on dairy products for their basic nutrition. That, in summary, is what the dairy cliff is all about. Every 5 years for the last 60 years, Congress has passed a Farm Bill. Never before has the Farm Bill expired like this. And now on January 1 we will implement market-distorting dairy policy so old that 49 current members of the Senate--including the Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee--were not even born when it was signed into law by then-President Harry Truman. Market chaos will erupt if we do not divert from this disastrous, reckless, needless, man-made path. Chaos, from the fact that farmers will be pressed to increase production at this inflated price, and chaos as we see an influx of imported dairy products as processors in other countries would divert products to the U.S. It is a rollercoaster of milk prices that, in the end, will benefit no one and hurt everyone. It is the kind of rollercoaster of dairy prices that the reforms we included in the Farm Bill are designed to address. As milk floods the market, the USDA will have to buy even more milk to keep up. Economists at the USDA say that implementation of permanent law for dairy would cost at least $12 to $15 billion per year. That does not include the cost of storing these dairy products. The USDA may not have enough storage space, and once USDA fills every warehouse at its storage facility in Kansas City, it will have to bring the rest to Washington and fill every closet at the Department of Agriculture's sprawling South Building with cheddar cheese and powdered milk. The effects of these purchases will reverberate throughout the economy, and time is running out. The cascade of damage will be felt by our farmers, our food processors, our grocery stores, and by American consumers and taxpayers. It will also be felt by the 16 million Americans with jobs in agriculture. All at a time when they can least afford it. Farmers in Vermont are very concerned that we are headed over this dairy cliff, and inaction on the Farm Bill has left the Nation's dairy farmers with no safety net, since the Milk Income Loss Contract Program expired on September 30. The House of Representatives is not giving our farmers, and especially our dairy farmers, a fair deal. We have been sent here to do a job, and it is not asking too much that Congress pass a five year Farm Bill, and on time. We heard Senator Stabenow speaking earlier this week about the agricultural disaster programs that have expired, in a year when we have experienced record droughts, terrible freezes, and then historic damage to farms as Hurricane Sandy stormed through the Garden State. Also at stake are eight important energy programs that have expired and programs to support America's organic farmers, specialty crop producers and beginning farmers. Close to my heart as well are the vital international food assistance programs that serve as a core component of U.S. efforts to fight global hunger. These have expired as well. In all, there are 37 programs that have expired, for absolutely no reason. Inaction on the Farm Bill by the House of Representatives is the perfect example of gridlock in Washington that so frustrates the American people. It threatens our economy. It threatens farmers. It harms the most vulnerable among us. And it is entirely pointless and avoidable. For all their talk of cutting Federal spending and reducing the cost of entitlements, House leaders and the obstructive caucus to which they are catering, by blocking the Farm Bill are poised--by themselves--to increase the Federal deficit by at least $12 to $15 billion in 2013 alone. Let me say that again: these obstructionists in the House are threatening to drive up the deficit by $12 to $15 billion. While stalling and delaying work on the Farm Bill, saying they want further, draconian cuts in food assistance for the families across this land who are struggling the most, House leaders are about to drive us over this dairy cliff and exponentially increase government spending, hit consumers hard, and destroy the fragile economic gains we have made. This is not what the American people and our farmers deserve. Let's do what is right and pass the Senate Farm Bill into law--without further delay and without the political posturing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the last four years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. For example, until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W. Bush served as President, only 5 of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court nominees, and the Majority Leader has been forced to file cloture on 20 of them. Federal district court judges are the trial court judges who hear cases from litigants across the country and preside over Federal criminal trials, applying the law to facts and helping settle legal disputes. They handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts and are critical to making sure our Federal courts remain available to provide a fair hearing for all Americans. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best, and have been confirmed quickly with that support. Never before in the 37 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything like what has happened in the last 4 years. Never before in the Senate's history have we seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Many are needlessly stalled and then confirmed virtually unanimously with no explanation for the obstruction. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-partisan positions. This is harmful to our Federal courts and the American people. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's controversial circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators. When we opposed Janice Rogers Brown, it was because of her long record on the California Supreme Court of deciding cases based on extreme views, and having argued that Social Security was unconstitutional. When we opposed Priscilla Owen, it was because her rulings on the Texas Supreme Court were so extreme that they drew the condemnation of even the conservative judges on that court. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home State Senators. Take the examples of Judge Robert Bacharach and William Kayatta, two consensus circuit nominees who have the support of their Republican home State Senators. Both these nominees received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating, that of unanimously ``Well Qualified.'' They have strong bipartisan support, and unimpeachable credentials, and there is no reason why they should not have been confirmed months ago. Republicans continue to stall them without final confirmation votes approximately 8 months after they were considered and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The irony and dangerous new development is that neither of these nominees faces any real Republican opposition. Senator Coburn, one of Judge Bacharach's home State Senators, has said: ``[Judge Bacharach] has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' Still, Senate Republicans refuse to allow for a vote on his nomination. The same also applies to Richard Taranto, who was reported more than eight months ago to a vacancy on the Federal Circuit by voice vote and faces no Republican opposition. This also applies to William Kayatta of Maine, who was reported nearly eight months ago and has the support of his two home State Republican Senators. It makes no sense for Senate Republicans to continue filibustering these nominations, but it fits with their track record over the last 4 years. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed but as soon as President Obama was elected they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination. Judge David Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and was supported by Senator Dick Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. They delayed his confirmation for 7 months. Senate Republicans then proceeded to obstruct and delay just about every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 10 of them. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit and Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, and Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal Circuit for 3 months. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican obstruction. This unprecedented and meritless obstruction means that when the Senate adjourns, Senate Republicans will have blocked more than 40 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees from being confirmed. This obstruction is also why a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies has persisted for over 3\1/2\ years. While such tactics are bad for the Senate, they are also bad for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has been historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. In fact, five of the judicial nominees pending on the Senate calendar on whom Republicans refuse to allow a vote would fill judicial emergency vacancies. For almost 4 years now, ever since President Barack Obama took office, we have heard the same spurious arguments from Senate Republicans for why they refuse to help our Federal courts function. Senate Republicans claim that we have not confirmed more judges because President Obama has not made a sufficient number of nominations. It is Senate Republicans themselves, and their unwillingness to work with a President who has reached out to them to submit recommendations and to work with him that has delayed many nominations. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has worked hard to solicit recommendations from home State Senators, including those from the other party. This President has consistently selected qualified, mainstream nominees. For the judicial vacancies in States with two Republican Senators, just 21 percent have a nominee. Four such vacancies exist in Texas--including three judicial emergency vacancies. This has prompted a retired Federal judge in Hawaii to move to Texas to help the overburdened judges with their caseload. I urge Senate Republicans to do a better job providing consensus recommendations and fulfilling their own constitutional responsibility to ``advise'' the President on nominations and work with President Obama to fill these vacancies. At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans now deliberately refuse to vote on several judicial nominees who could and should be confirmed in order to consume additional time the following year confirming these nominees. At the end of 2009, they left 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar without a vote. Two of those nominations were returned to the President, and it subsequently took 9 months for the Senate to take action on the other 8. This resulted in the lowest 1- year confirmation total in at least 35 years. For the last 2 years, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar at the end of each year. It then took nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm these nominees. This year they are insisting on leaving 11 judicial nominees without action and another 4 have had hearings but Senate Republicans refused to expedite their consideration. Senate Republicans claim that their delays and obstruction should be excused because, despite their opposition, the Senate confirmed the President's two Supreme Court Justices. Senate Republicans ignore the fact that during President Bush's first 4 years 205 circuit and district court nominees had been confirmed, and that judicial vacancies were reduced to as low as 28. During his second term, vacancies were reduced to 34. Vacancies have stood at nearly or above for most of President Obama's first four years and will not dip below 60. Vacancies remain more than twice what they were at the end of President Bush's first term. The 173 judges that we have been able to confirm fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term. Moreover, when the Senate confirmed two Justices during President Clinton's first term and President George H.W. Bush's term, the Senate also confirmed 200 and 192 circuit and district nominees, respectively. Their obstruction of needed confirmations cannot be justified on account of the two Supreme Court vacancies. Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order and usually confirmed four to six nominees per week, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district nomination is stalled 4.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration, and the average circuit court nomination is stalled on average 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Nor has any other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee. No one is happier than I that a dozen district court nominees will be confirmed during this lame duck session but that is hardly something justifying Republican chest beating. What it starkly demonstrates is that they have been stalling consensus nominees for months without cause. All of these nominees could and should have been confirmed before the August recess and should have been at work administering justice for the American people. In most other years, like in 2008, judicial nominees, especially those who are qualified, consensus nominees with bipartisan support and the support of their home State Senators, are confirmed before the election recess. They are not stalled and not dragged over into a lame duck session after the election. This is not success, unless you believe that perpetuating vacancies and forcing hardworking Americans to wait even longer to have their day in court is something of which to be proud. Senate Republicans have also forced the Majority Leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already more than 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Barely 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed, compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's first term nominees. While this is not even close to a full account of the precedents broken in the last 4 years, the record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Pretending it has not taken place is an insult to the American people. The American people know better. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies. . . . This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads. . . . There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address the judicial vacancy crisis, Senate Republicans continued their obstruction of judicial confirmations. Today, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote on 3 but only 3 of the 14 judicial nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. Judge Malachy Mannion is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he currently serves as the Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge. He has been a Magistrate Judge in that District for over 10 years, where he has presided over 104 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to his appointment as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, Judge Mannion served as Federal prosecutor for over 10 years, where he rose to become the Chief of the Office's Organized Crime Enforcement Task Force. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave him its highest possible rating of ``Well Qualified.'' His nomination has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago by voice vote. Matthew Brann is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He has been in private practice for over 2 decades, where he specializes in complex corporate and commercial transactions, real estate, probate, and estate planning. He has tried 20 cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision. He has the support of his home State Senators, and he was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote 5 months ago. Judge Jon Tigar is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Tigar is currently a Superior Court Judge for Alameda County, where he has presided over 175 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. He previously spent 10 years as a litigator in private practice at two prominent law firms in San Francisco. He earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable Robert S. Vance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave him its highest possible rating of ``Well Qualified.'' His nomination has the support of his home State Senators, and he was approved by the Judiciary Committee more than four months ago by voice vote. After today's vote, there will still be 11 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar, 6 of whom were voted out of the Judiciary Committee before the August recess. There is no reason why we cannot confirm all of them today. I have also been urging Republicans to expedite consideration of the 4 judicial nominees who participated in hearings last Wednesday. That would lead to 11 more confirmations before the Senate adjourns to help address the judicial vacancies that currently exist in our Federal courts. If we adjourn today without confirming these additional nominees, we will leave those 11 vacancies and 5 emergency vacancies open for even longer, and there will be at least 80 vacancies when President Obama begins his second term. Recall that during President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from January, 2005 through January, 2009, vacancies never exceeded 60. So far during President Obama's first 4 years in office and as far into the future as we can see there have never been less than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. This is a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people. I commend President Obama for nominating such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first 4 years, President Obama has appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just 4 years, President Obama has also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. Americans can be proud of President Obama's efforts to increase diversity in the Federal judiciary and to ensure that it better reflects all Americans. I hope that next year, and in the next 4 years, Senate Republicans will end their misguided and harmful obstruction and work with us in a bipartisan manner to do what is right for the country. President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, and the Senate should consider them in regular order, without unnecessary delays. That is what we had done for as long as I have served in the Senate, whether the nominations came from a Democratic or a Republican president. We should work together to restore and uphold the best traditions of the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been saying for weeks and months that we are overdue to pass into law the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which the Senate approved in April with 68 bipartisan votes. I am disappointed that the House still has not picked up this bipartisan effort and that we are not getting the job done this year. I want everyone to know that I will be back next year, and we will get it done. Just yesterday we were reminded again why this legislation is so important. In Colorado, a man just released from jail on domestic violence charges shot his way into a house, murdering his ex- girlfriend, and her sister, and her sister's husband, before killing himself. We have seen enough horrific violence. It is past time to act. The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It will help us go further to prevent domestic and sexual violence and to provide services and support to all victims. For several weeks, I have been advocating a compromise on a key provision aimed at addressing the epidemic of domestic violence against native women. I want to compliment my partner on this bill, Senator Crapo, who has been working hard to try to bridge the divide and address concerns with the provision in our bill that gives limited jurisdiction to tribal courts to make sure that no perpetrators of domestic violence are immune from prosecution. Senator Crapo has pushed hard and has indicated a willingness to compromise significantly, as have I. Sadly, others have continued to draw lines which would ultimately deny assistance to some of the most vulnerable victims. That is unacceptable. I appreciate that there have at last been some renewed discussions about this bill in the House of Representatives but that is not enough. The only way to reauthorize VAWA this year is for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill. If the House Republican leadership refuses to do that in the final days of this Congress, it is a shame. I remain steadfast in my resolve to get this done and pass a good VAWA bill that protects all victims. I know Senator Crapo shares my resolve. I know every woman in the Senate and many other Senators and House members share our resolve. I know President Obama and Vice President Biden share our resolve. We will be back next year. We will introduce a good bill, and we will pass it through the Senate. We will continue our discussions, and we will work tirelessly to have a good bill enacted into law. This is not the end of our efforts to renew and improve VAWA to more effectively help all victims of domestic and sexual violence. We know that the epidemic of violence against native women is appalling, with a recent study finding that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. We know that immigrant women are particularly vulnerable, with their immigration status another weapon that abusers can use to keep power and prevent reporting. We know that some victims cannot access needed services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We know that women and girls on college campuses are too much at risk, and more must be done to protect them. The list goes on. We have shown a willingness to compromise but we must make progress on all of these issues. We must make things better, and never make things worse, for the most vulnerable of victims. The community of advocates and service providers who work every day with victims of these terrible crimes is inspiring. It was their advice on the real needs of real victims that shaped this legislation, and they have fought with us every day to get this bill enacted. I want them to know how much I value the work they do and that I will not abandon their cause. We will continue working together, and we will reauthorize VAWA. We have seen enough violence. If we cannot get the Leahy-Crapo bill over the finish line this year, we will come back next year, and we will get it done. I look forward to other Senators joining us as we continue this vital effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are enacting legislation to update the Video Privacy Protection Act, VPPA, in order to permit the ongoing sharing of video viewing information via the Internet. This bill contains important digital privacy provisions that I authored in the Senate to ensure consumer control over video viewing information. During my more than three decades in the Senate, I have worked to protect the privacy rights of American consumers. In doing so, I have joined with Democrats and Republicans alike to help guarantee the right to privacy for every citizen. Last month, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported legislation that included these video privacy updates with strong bipartisan support. I commend Senator Franken for his exceptional work on this measure as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy and the Law. He held the hearings and helped the committee to develop the proposal contained in this bill. I congratulate Representative Goodlatte for his work on this bill. He began the effort in the House to update the VPPA and has worked with me to reach this final product. I look forward to working with him to update another critical digital privacy law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, in the new year. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported a good proposal to ensure a warrant requirement for e-mails and we should move forward quickly to enact it. The bill we enact today takes several important steps to accommodate new technologies, like video streaming and social networking, while also helping to protect digital privacy rights in cyberspace. First, the bill updates the Video Privacy Protection Act to keep pace with how most Americans view and share videos today--on the Internet. This bill will allow American consumers, if they wish, to share their movie and television watching experiences through social media, while also ensuring that the important privacy protections in this law are not diminished. Second, to protect the privacy of American consumers, the bill retains key privacy protections already in the VPPA which require that consumers ``opt-in'' to the sharing of their video viewing information. The bill similarly retains the requirement in current law that consumers provide informed written consent to share video viewing information. Moreover, to ensure that consumers have control over their own video viewing data, the bill provides that consumers may ``opt-in'' to the information sharing on an ongoing basis for a period of up to 2 years at a time. Consumers may ``opt-out'' of the information sharing at any time. Lastly, the bill requires that the opportunity for a consumer to withdraw consent to the disclosure of video viewing information must be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner. This provision requires a video tape service provider to provide one of two opportunities for the consumer to withdraw consent: on a case-by-case--i.e., per title-- basis, or to withdraw consent for ongoing disclosures. The bill does not, however, specify where on a Web site, or in what form, the opportunity to withdraw consent should be provided. Like many Americans, I am concerned about the growing and unwelcome government intrusions into our private lives in cyber space. Last month, the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly passed my legislative proposal to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to require a search warrant in order for the government to obtain our e- mail and other electronic communications stored with third-party service providers. When we worked to enact ECPA in 1986, no one could have imagined the way the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today. But, after three decades, this critical privacy law has been outpaced by the explosion of new technologies and the expansion of the government's surveillance powers. My Electronic Communications Privacy Act updates would revive and enhance the privacy protections afforded to Americans' e-mails and other electronic communications by establishing a warrant requirement for all e-mail content when stored with a third-party service provider or ``in the cloud.'' There are limited exceptions to this requirement under current law. I have worked to make certain that these updates carefully balance privacy interests, the needs of law enforcement, and the interest of our thriving American tech sector. When the Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, we did so with strong, bipartisan support. Today, we continue that long and proud tradition of coming together across Chamber and party affiliation by enacting this update to the VPPA. My legislative reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act are likewise deserving of such broad and bipartisan support. I urge us to join together in the Congress to enact these important privacy updates without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I withdraw the pending substitute amendment No. 3338.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to praise the senior Senator from Maryland. I was out here listening to what she said but not just the words. She believes them. It is a passion. She cares. She and I have served on the Appropriations Committee for about 100 or 200 years, I think. She was a child when she went there, but we have served there together. We both have lost one of our dearest friends, Senator Inouye. But over and over in that committee, I have heard her stand and say: People are involved. These are human beings, and we ought to stand up for them. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, because she represents New York State, when we have a disaster of this unbelievable amount, the whole Nation is supposed to come together. We are the United States of America. We are not the State of New York, the State of Maryland, the State of Vermont; we are the United States of America. We have come together as a country. Whether the disaster has been in California, on the east coast or in Southern States or in the West, we come together, and that is what we are trying to do. I would defy any Senator who has worried about coming together to help these people to go to one of the homes. Go to one of the homes on Long Island. Go to one of the homes that has been devastated. Go to one of the businesses where we have a couple who spent their whole life building up their business, hoping to have something to leave to their children, and now they are looking at rubble. Come on. These are real people. This is the United States of America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico on the Senate floor, and I yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY

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