Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of three nominees to serve on the U.S. district courts in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported two of these nominees unanimously to the full Senate, and the third nominee with strong bipartisan support. These nominees are not controversial and in past years would have been confirmed weeks, or even months, ago. Instead, Republicans continue to refuse to give consent for votes on any judicial nominee, irrespective of their qualifications or the support of home State Senators. As a result, yesterday the Senate was forced again to waste valuable time voting to end the unnecessary filibusters of three highly qualified nominees. The Senate has now voted to end the filibusters of 44 judicial nominees so far during 2014. It is every Senator's right to demand continued debate on any measure or nomination before this chamber. But I would say to any Senator who requires a cloture vote on a qualified, consensus nominee to at least speak about the nominee and not to obstruct for obstruction's sake. I hope that this partisan fever will break in the near future, and that Republicans will stop reducing the Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent into a tool of obstruction. These delays should stop. Mark Mastroianni has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He has served since 2011 as district attorney in the Hampden district attorney's office and previously worked in private practice. Following law school, he served as an assistant district attorney in the Hampden District Attorney's Office from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Mastroianni has the support of his home State senators, Senator Warren and Senator Markey. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 6, 2014. Judge Bruce Hendricks has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. She has served since 2002 as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of South Carolina. During her judicial service, she presided over thousands of criminal and civil cases. She served as an adjunct professor at the College of Charleston from 2000 to 2001, teaching classes on the structure of the Federal and State court system and civil processes and procedures. She previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of South Carolina from 1991 to 2002. Judge Hendricks' nomination received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``unanimously well qualified.'' She has the support of her home State Republican senators, Senator Graham and Senator Scott. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate by roll call vote of 16-2 on March 6, 2014. Tanya Chutkan has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Tanya Chutkan has worked in private practice as a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, where she has served as a partner since 2007 and as a counsel from 2002 to 2006. She previously served as an attorney at The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia from 1991 to 2002. She worked in private practice as an associate at Donovan, Leisure, Rogovin, Huge & Schiller from 1990 to 1991 and at Hogan & Hartson LLP from 1987 to 1990. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 27, 2014. In addition to the nominees we will vote on today, there are 10 additional judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, including seven nominees who were reported unanimously. Six of the 10 judicial nominees that will be left pending after today's confirmation votes will fill judicial emergency vacancies in the District of Nevada, the Southern District of Illinois, and in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida. I hope that the Senate moves quickly to confirm these nominees, and others.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, following the resignation of Secretary Shinseki last week, it is time for some deep soul-searching about the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As details slowly emerge from the inspector general's investigation, I am struck by a disturbing aspect of organizational culture within the VA that prioritizes meeting goals and checking boxes instead of providing true quality care for veterans. Secretary Shinseki himself was a decorated veteran, and I am sure he must have been as frustrated as all of us to find some of the things that were happening. There is an overwhelming current rushing toward the path of least resistance for ``reporting'' care for the men and women who served this Nation admirably and with dedication. But we should not lose sight of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the VA system every day striving to provide effective and timely care to veterans. We have to tell ourselves that there is really no shortcut to quality care for veterans. The VA has rightly been under intense pressure and scrutiny to live up to the promise we made to veterans when they agreed to serve. We have many people in this body and the other body who voted for a war that I think historians will call a disaster--the war in Iraq. For the first time in America's history, they voted for a war and did not do anything to pay for it--no tax to pay for it or anything else. Ten years later, though, they say: We have to watch the cost of VA health care and all that; we have to find the money. Well, that did not bother them when they sent these men and women to war. Let's take care of them now. It has become apparent that at facilities across the United States some VA employees have decided to choose to simply tell those above them and those of us with oversight responsibility what they want to hear, over providing quality care in a timely fashion. And that is appalling and unacceptable. But most VA employees are tireless servants. Many are veterans themselves. For those men and women who give their all for our veterans, it is becoming evident that the system of incentives and disincentives may have worked against them. For example, it appears that the criteria for bonuses are too weighted towards reported metrics, rather than toward taking the time to understand the outcomes behind the statistics. What sort of message is sent to good employees when their ``success'' depends only on a small part of the picture of veterans' care? There should be no shortcut to quality care for veterans in Washington policymaking circles either. The mere replacement of a cabinet secretary results in neither accountability nor reform. Even widespread firing of SES-level government employees will not automatically result in providing quality care for veterans. Other meaningful and more comprehensive reforms are needed, and without delay. Earlier this year my distinguished colleague from Vermont Senator Sanders introduced an expansive collection of many needed reforms. Unfortunately, like so many bills we have tried to consider this year, partisan objections stalled progress based on procedural rather than substantive matters. Some of the same people who have been so critical of this administration and the VA were the same ones who voted to block going forward with needed reforms. Well, the Senate is going to get another opportunity to consider a comprehensive collection of reforms. It must prompt some meaningful bipartisan action here in the Senate. Let's not play ``gotcha.'' Let's play ``help you'' to the veterans. That is what we need to do. Congress has an obligation to consider, debate, and vote on the reforms needed to make our system of care for veterans both efficient and effective. My wife began her nursing career as a brand new registered nurse in a VA hospital. I know how hard she and those around her worked. They were veterans of a different generation, but they needed help and care just as much as everybody else. So I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the legislation introduced yesterday by Senator Sanders. I am proud to cosponsor it. Many reforms are needed within the VA, and the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act takes important steps toward achieving these changes. Of course, additional reforms are needed. So today I am introducing legislation to address one shortfall at the VA that has existed far too long. Current law provides a disincentive to cost-effective, onsite medical care solutions when operating rooms are refurbished or rebuilt within a VA hospital or care facility. Because the VA must report any major medical facility costs exceeding $10 million to Congress, the VA is encouraged to pay for veterans care at outside facilities, including travel to and from those facilities, out of the medical services account. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a different pot of money. So that way they do not have to have an extensive report. But the best solution for veterans and the bottom line may very well be a temporary onsite facility. The bill is simple but attempts to take the allure of a shortcut away by ensuring that the expenses of temporary offsite care are also calculated and reported. Senator Sanders, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has said: ``If you think it's too expensive to take care of our veterans, then don't send them to war.'' He is right. We paid for two unfunded wars on a credit card. Now it is time we invest in those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our security. It is time for us to worry about some of the things we need to do here at home. It is time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, following the resignation of Secretary Shinseki last week, it is time for some deep soul-searching about the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As details slowly emerge from the inspector general's investigation, I am struck by a disturbing aspect of organizational culture within the VA that prioritizes meeting goals and checking boxes instead of providing true quality care for veterans. Secretary Shinseki himself was a decorated veteran, and I am sure he must have been as frustrated as all of us to find some of the things that were happening. There is an overwhelming current rushing toward the path of least resistance for ``reporting'' care for the men and women who served this Nation admirably and with dedication. But we should not lose sight of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the VA system every day striving to provide effective and timely care to veterans. We have to tell ourselves that there is really no shortcut to quality care for veterans. The VA has rightly been under intense pressure and scrutiny to live up to the promise we made to veterans when they agreed to serve. We have many people in this body and the other body who voted for a war that I think historians will call a disaster--the war in Iraq. For the first time in America's history, they voted for a war and did not do anything to pay for it--no tax to pay for it or anything else. Ten years later, though, they say: We have to watch the cost of VA health care and all that; we have to find the money. Well, that did not bother them when they sent these men and women to war. Let's take care of them now. It has become apparent that at facilities across the United States some VA employees have decided to choose to simply tell those above them and those of us with oversight responsibility what they want to hear, over providing quality care in a timely fashion. And that is appalling and unacceptable. But most VA employees are tireless servants. Many are veterans themselves. For those men and women who give their all for our veterans, it is becoming evident that the system of incentives and disincentives may have worked against them. For example, it appears that the criteria for bonuses are too weighted towards reported metrics, rather than toward taking the time to understand the outcomes behind the statistics. What sort of message is sent to good employees when their ``success'' depends only on a small part of the picture of veterans' care? There should be no shortcut to quality care for veterans in Washington policymaking circles either. The mere replacement of a cabinet secretary results in neither accountability nor reform. Even widespread firing of SES-level government employees will not automatically result in providing quality care for veterans. Other meaningful and more comprehensive reforms are needed, and without delay. Earlier this year my distinguished colleague from Vermont Senator Sanders introduced an expansive collection of many needed reforms. Unfortunately, like so many bills we have tried to consider this year, partisan objections stalled progress based on procedural rather than substantive matters. Some of the same people who have been so critical of this administration and the VA were the same ones who voted to block going forward with needed reforms. Well, the Senate is going to get another opportunity to consider a comprehensive collection of reforms. It must prompt some meaningful bipartisan action here in the Senate. Let's not play ``gotcha.'' Let's play ``help you'' to the veterans. That is what we need to do. Congress has an obligation to consider, debate, and vote on the reforms needed to make our system of care for veterans both efficient and effective. My wife began her nursing career as a brand new registered nurse in a VA hospital. I know how hard she and those around her worked. They were veterans of a different generation, but they needed help and care just as much as everybody else. So I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the legislation introduced yesterday by Senator Sanders. I am proud to cosponsor it. Many reforms are needed within the VA, and the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act takes important steps toward achieving these changes. Of course, additional reforms are needed. So today I am introducing legislation to address one shortfall at the VA that has existed far too long. Current law provides a disincentive to cost-effective, onsite medical care solutions when operating rooms are refurbished or rebuilt within a VA hospital or care facility. Because the VA must report any major medical facility costs exceeding $10 million to Congress, the VA is encouraged to pay for veterans care at outside facilities, including travel to and from those facilities, out of the medical services account. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a different pot of money. So that way they do not have to have an extensive report. But the best solution for veterans and the bottom line may very well be a temporary onsite facility. The bill is simple but attempts to take the allure of a shortcut away by ensuring that the expenses of temporary offsite care are also calculated and reported. Senator Sanders, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has said: ``If you think it's too expensive to take care of our veterans, then don't send them to war.'' He is right. We paid for two unfunded wars on a credit card. Now it is time we invest in those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our security. It is time for us to worry about some of the things we need to do here at home. It is time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the regular order?

Mr. LEAHY. Has that time expired?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is no secret that communities across the country are struggling to break the cycle of addiction to powerful opioids, including heroin. We are now seeing addiction creep into neighborhoods and communities of all sizes, both rural and urban. My home State of Vermont has not been spared, and it in fact has attracted much attention for its struggles with addiction. However in many ways, Vermont is ahead of much of the Nation when it comes to responding to the opioid epidemic. We long ago recognized the problem, and communities in Vermont have spent the better part of a decade coming together to address opioid addiction. In March I had the privilege of chairing a field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Rutland, VT. It was the fourth time in the past 6 years that I brought the committee to Vermont to explore issues related to drug abuse. I heard powerful testimony discussing how communities are responding to addiction, rethinking decades-old approaches to prevention, treatment, and law enforcement efforts. Dr. Harry Chen, the Vermont Department of Health commissioner and a career emergency room physician, described what it means to recognize addiction as a public health issue, expanding evidence-based prevention and treatment services to all corners of the State. Vermont hospitals are also rethinking best practices in light of this epidemic. Recently, the Office of National Drug Control Policy published an article entitled ``How a Vermont Hospital Fights the American Opioid Epidemic.'' The article was authored by Dr. Stephen Leffler, the chief medical officer at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington, VT. In the article, Dr. Leffler describes how Fletcher Allen is on the leading edge of modernizing health care practices to minimize abuse and addiction, while still providing necessary pain management. The hospital provides clear, standardized protocols for treating pain, defines a maximum daily dosage as guided by the latest research, and measures patients' risk for addiction. This approach ensures consistency in treatment and may help to stem the flow of prescription opioid users from sliding into addiction. The approach described in Dr. Leffler's article could potentially serve as a model for the rest of country, and I would encourage other States grappling with addiction to look at what Fletcher Allen is doing in Burlington. If we are to find legislative solutions that may finally break the cycle of opioid addiction, then surely we must carefully consider promising, novel approaches such as this. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Leffler's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, later today we are going to vote on the confirmation of David Barron, who has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Yesterday, we were able to overcome the unjustified Republican filibuster of this extraordinary nominee. Now, I have had the privilege of serving longer in this body than any other Senator here. I have never seen so many filibusters of judicial nominees by any President, Republican or Democratic. In fact, Republicans filibustered the very first judge President Obama sent to this body, a judge who was strongly supported by the Senators from his State, one of whom was the most senior Republican in this body, the other a moderate Democrat. Fortunately, enough Senators joined together to overcome that filibuster. David Barron is currently a professor at Harvard Law School. He is a nationally recognized expert in constitutional law and the separation of powers, administrative law, and federalism. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens. In fact, I recall that Justice Stevens had so much regard for him that he attended Mr. Barron's nomination hearing. I am in full support of Mr. Barron's nomination. It is almost as if he was sent to central casting for who should be a court of appeals judge. I have not seen any judicial nominee with better qualifications by either a Republican or Democratic President. Let me respond to some of the criticisms levied against him with respect to the so-called drone memos as well as allegations that he would not be an independent judge who adheres to the rule of law. I reject both of those criticisms. Over the last few weeks, I have spoken extensively about the issue of the drone materials and would refer specifically to my statement of May 14 of this year. While Senators may disagree with the administration's policies regarding the use of drones for lethal counterterrorism operations--and I have raised concerns about some of those operations-- it is important not to conflate the confirmation of David Barron with the disclosure of Justice Department memoranda over which he had no control. He wrote an analysis of the law. Others make the decision of what they will do. Yesterday the Justice Department made the right decision by agreeing to publicly release the redacted version of the legal justification for the government's potential use of lethal force against U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations. I welcome the administration's additional step toward greater transparency. Incidentally, these materials have been available to all Senators in recent weeks. We have had them in the unredacted form in a secure room here in the Capitol. We did that so that nobody could claim: Well, if only I knew what was in those memos, I could make up my mind. Every single Senator has had an opportunity to read them before today's vote. We have heard some Senators argue that the Justice Department legal analysis provides the government with a blank check to use lethal force against Americans in places such as Germany or Canada. Oh my God, talk about grasping at straws. We are dealing with reality here, not Alice in Wonderland. Such a claim is simply inaccurate, inconsistent with the understanding anybody would have reading these materials. In any event, the Attorney General has confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaki is the only American who was specifically targeted and killed since 2009. Awlaki was a senior operational leader of all of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, located in Yemen. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was continuing to plot attacks against the United States when he was killed, according to the Attorney General. I am glad a number of Senators share my deep regard for the constitutional rights of Americans and have spoken about that on the floor. I hope that after Mr. Barron is confirmed, they will show they really believe what they have been saying by joining me and 21 other Senators in cosponsoring the USA FREEDOM Act to help restore America's constitutional and privacy rights. Finally, both Mr. Barron and a long list of bipartisan supporters have forcefully refuted any indication that he views the role of a judge as that of a policymaker. In a response to a question from Senator Grassley, Mr. Barron stated the following under oath: The judicial obligation is to set aside whatever personal views one may have and to decide the particular case at issue. A judge must base the decision in any case solely on the facts and the law, while respectfully considering the arguments of the litigants. I would take that obligation to be an inexorable one, just as I felt obliged to set aside any personal views I may have had in providing legal advice within the executive branch while serving as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel and as a career lawyer in that Office. I believe the best way to ensure one honors that obligation is to immerse oneself fully in the particular facts of the case and the law relevant to it and then to apply the law faithfully to those facts. Mr. Barron's respect for the rule of law was recently reaffirmed by Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a well-respected conservative scholar and former George W. Bush appointee to the Tenth Circuit. In a letter dated May 7, 2014 in support of Mr. Barron's nomination, Professor McConnell stated: I suspect that on particular controversial issues, Barron and I disagree more often than not. But I have read much of his academic work, and followed his performance as acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel. In my opinion, his writings and opinions have demonstrated not only intelligence (even where we disagree) but respect for the rule of law. In the Office of Legal Counsel, whose functions closely resemble those of a judge, Barron's publicly released opinions indicated that he was consistently a force for legal regularity and respect for the constitution and laws of the United States. That is an important and precious thing. I ask unanimous consent that Professor McConnell's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. It should be clear from Mr. Barron's testimony and Professor McConnell's letter that David Barron would faithfully discharge his duty as a judge in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Senator Grassley cited yesterday to some statements made by Mr. Barron in his academic writings, but as Professor McConnell noted in his letter: It is important to bear in mind that academic legal writing in constitutional law is often exploratory and provocative. No one should assume that an academic would take the same approach toward deciding cases that he does in writing about cases. Professor McConnell should know, as he is a prolific academic who was similarly able to discharge his duty as a judge faithfully and consistently with the Constitution when he served on the bench. As a reminder to Republicans who are currently opposing Mr. Barron's nomination on these grounds, I will note that the Senate unanimously confirmed Professor McConnell's nomination to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration. Mr. Barron is truly an outstanding nominee. So outstanding, in fact, that Professor McConnell called him ``one of President Obama's two or three best nominations to the appellate courts.'' I would urge all Senators to vote to confirm Mr. Barron to the First Circuit.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Saturday we celebrated the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. In that unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. The Court ``concluded that,'' in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' This landmark decision is rightly celebrated every year. The case of Hernandez v. State of Texas, however, decided by the Supreme Court just 2 weeks before the Brown decision, is an often overlooked and yet momentous advancement of civil rights in our country. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or black, and extends to all racial groups in the United States. Fortunately, we are only left to imagine a world without the Hernandez decision, a world that would have blocked Hispanics and other racial groups from the promise of equality made in the Constitution. Taken together, the Brown and Hernandez decisions stand as landmarks of progress in our country. We have come far in the march towards equality; yet, we must recognize that we can and must achieve more. Six decades after the Brown and Hernandez decisions, our country must continue to confront social, economic, and racial inequalities throughout this country. Racial inequality is not an issue that our society can just wish away in the 21st century. It still exists in our criminal justice system, educational, and voting systems, and in our housing and lending markets. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a member of the Senate for nearly 40 years, I have fought to uphold the promise of equality in our fundamental charter. The anniversary of these civil rights cases is a moment to reflect on our past, and to evaluate and commit to the next steps that we need to take as we strive to build a more perfect Union. As many families across the Nation celebrate the graduation of hard- working students who have earned their degrees, it is important to also celebrate all who helped in the journey traveled. As former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said: None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody--a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns--bent down and helped us pick up our boots. Let us rejoice as a nation that in 60 years we have made great strides. We must not forget that the promise of our founding charter is aspirational, and we are all made better by the fight to bring greater liberty and equality to the Nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud to come to the Senate floor today to celebrate the passage of a resolution commemorating and honoring the dedication and sacrifice of law enforcement officers who have been killed or injured in the line of duty. I urge other Senators to show their support for the men and women who work tirelessly to protect our communities. This week is National Police Week, a time when thousands of law enforcement officers come to our Nation's Capital, and we pause to honor the sacrifices of our men and women in law enforcement. On Tuesday night the names of 286 officers killed in the line of duty were added to the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, 101 of whom were lost in 2013. The memorial now contains the names of over 20,000 fallen officers. This resolution pays tribute to those who have fallen, recognizing May 15, 2014, as ``National Peace Officers Memorial Day'' and calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with solemnity, appreciation, and respect. Earlier today, Senator Grassley and I attended the 33rd Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial service here on the West Front of the Capitol. The event was a somber reminder of the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make every day. We have a responsibility to support them in the critical work they do. I also urge the Senate to come together to honor law enforcement officers by supporting the passage of both S.933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, and S. 357, the National Blue Alert Act. These bills are unanimously and strongly supported by law enforcement and passing these bills would provide tangible, life-saving assistance to those who serve on the front lines, protecting our communities. I thank Senators Grassley, Shaheen, Wicker, Markey, Begich, Udall of New Mexico, Hagan, Coons, Durbin, Franken, Booker, Landrieu, Reed, Blumenthal, Schatz, Heitkamp, Feinstein, Udall of Colorado, Wicker, Pryor, Hirono, Cardin, Cochran, Warner, Mikulski, Warren, Schumer, Murray, Whitehouse, Donnelly, Heinrich, and Klobuchar for their cosponsorship of this resolution and their support for law enforcement. I am very glad to see this resolution pass.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, we are voting to overcome Republican filibusters of seven highly qualified judicial nominees. Every single one of the nominees we will be voting on this week has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. This means that the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has designated them as emergency vacancies due to high caseloads. We continue to seek consent from Republicans to vote on much needed judges to our Federal judiciary, and yet they continue to refuse. Republicans have objected to moving to a vote on every single judicial nominee this year. I can only hope that they will eventually come to see the error of their ways. Before proceeding with the qualifications of these judicial nominees, I would again like to clarify and address some questions regarding the nomination of David Barron. Mr. Barron has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. There have been press accounts that have inaccurately stated what the administration has made available for Senators to review relevant to this nomination. As I said last week, the administration has made available unredacted copies of any memo issued by Mr. Barron regarding the potential use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Awlaki. This week, the administration has made clear that this material included all written legal advice by Mr. Barron regarding potential use of lethal force against U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations. Senators therefore have had the opportunity to conduct their due diligence before voting on this nomination. In an Internet post titled ``Why Civil Libertarians and Drone Critics Should Support David Barron,'' Georgetown Law Professor David Cole--one of the foremost critics of the administration over its failure to publicly disclose legal material addressing the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens--has stated: It is a mistake to conflate the issues of the appointment of David Barron and disclosure of the memos. Barron is a highly qualified lawyer who I know personally to be thoughtful, considerate, open-minded, and brilliant. His confirmation would put in place a judge who will be absolutely vigilant in his protection of civil liberties and his insistence that executive power be constrained by the rule of law. That long-term value should not be sacrificed because of a short-term battle over memos that every Senator already has the opportunity to review. Professor Cole is right. I have personally pressed the administration for greater transparency on these matters as well, but that is a separate debate and we should not be waging it at the expense of harming our Federal judiciary and denying the American people an individual who will make a first-rate judge. Not only is this tactic unwise, but it also does not help advance the cause of those who are seeking public disclosure of the memos. As Professor Cole has further explained: [H]olding up Barron's nomination is unlikely to expedite disclosure of the memos. It will only undermine the confirmation of someone who would make an excellent judge. The Administration has been ordered (unanimously) to release the memo, and will in short order either comply with that order or seek further review. Barron has no control over that decision, and should not be held hostage to it . . . I am second to none in my support for transparency. And I will continue to fight for that value on its own terms. But it is a huge mistake to let our legitimate concerns about transparency get in the way of the confirmation of a judge who will faithfully protect our liberties and hold government accountable--especially when the Senate already has been given access to all the information they need to exercise their ``advise and consent'' role. I agree completely with Professor Cole, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full posting after my remarks. I would further ask unanimous consent to include a joint op-ed in the Boston Globe by Harvard Law professors Charles Fried and Laurence Tribe--two legal luminaries who often disagree in their views on the Constitution and other legal issues. As the two of them have written: The nation badly needs the best possible judges--men and women of integrity, intelligence, judicial temperament, respect for the rule of law, and an understanding of the role of judges within our legal system. Barron understands and exemplifies those values. He should be released from the destructive tangle in which he has become quite undeservedly enmeshed and placed on the First Circuit Court of Appeals where he can serve our nation with great distinction. We should proceed to Mr. Barron's nomination and confirm him so he can get to work on behalf of the American people. Delays are simply depriving the Federal judiciary and all Americans of a tremendous public servant. This week, we will proceed to vote to end filibusters on the following seven nominations: Judge Gregg Costa has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas. He has served since 2012 as a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of Texas. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Texas from 2005 to 2012. He worked in private practice as an associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges from 2002 to 2005. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit from 1999 to 2000 and to Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2001 to 2002. He also served as a Bristow fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General from 2000 to 2001. Judge Costa earned his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1994. He earned his J.D. with the highest honors from the University of Texas Law School in 1999. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 27, 2014. Judge Steven Logan has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served on the Military Court of Appeals since 2013 and as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of Arizona since 2012. He also served as a Staff Judge Advocate in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves from 2012 to 2013. Previously, from 2010 to 2012, he served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. From 2009 to 2011, he served as an Article I Deputy Chief Reserve Military Judge, and from 2005 to 2009, he served as an Article I Military Judge to the U.S. Department of the Navy. Prior to becoming judge, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Arizona from 2001 to 2010 and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Minnesota from 1999 to 2001. From 1993 to 1999, he worked for the Department of Defense, where he served as a Prosecutor--1996-1999--and as a contracting officer--1993-1996. Judge Logan has completed three deployments of Active Duty in Afghanistan--2008-2009--and Iraq--2004, 2007-2008. During his military service, he received numerous awards that include the Bronze Star in 2008, the Meritorious Service Medal in 2004 and 2012, and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal in 2004. Judge Logan has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 27, 2014. John Tuchi has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2012 as the chief assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona, where he also has served as the U.S. attorney for an interim period in 2009 and as an assistant U.S. attorney since 1998. From 2001 to 2007, he served as an adjunct professor at the Arizona State University Law School, teaching courses on professional responsibility. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Tuchi worked in private practice at Brown & Bain, P.A. as an associate. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge William C. Canby, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 1995. In 2010, he received the Director's Award for Outstanding Performance in Indian Country from the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Tuchi has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on February 27, 2014. Diane Humetewa has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She has served as a professor of practice and special advisor to the president at the Arizona State University Law School since 2011. From 2009 to 2011, she worked in private practice as a counsel at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. From 1998 to 2009, she served in the U.S. attorney's Office in the District of Arizona as an assistant U.S. attorney--1998-2007--and then as the U.S. attorney from 2007 to 2009. From 2005 to 2006, she served as a detailee with the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Ms. Humetewa also served as an appellate court judge for the Hopi Tribe from 2002 to 2007. Prior to her service in Arizona, she served as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1996 to 1998. After graduating from law school, she served as Deputy Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs from 1993 to 1996. She has the support of her Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on February 27, 2014. When confirmed, Ms. Humetewa will be the first Native American woman to serve as a Federal judge and the third Native American ever to do so. Rosemary Morquez has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She has served since 2008 in private practice as a sole practitioner in Tucson, AZ. She previously served as a partner at Montoya & Morquez, PLLC from 2000 to 2008, an assistant Federal public defender in the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tucson, AZ from 1996 to 2000, a county legal defender in the Pima County Legal Defender's Office from 1994 to 1996, and a deputy county attorney in the Pima County Attorney's Office in 1994. Ms. Morquez earned her B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1990. She earned her J.D. from the University of Arizona Law School in 1993. She has the support of her Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by a roll call vote of 15 to 2 on February 27, 2014. Judge Douglas Rayes has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2000 as an Arizona State judge in Maricopa County Superior Court, including as associate presiding civil judge from 2008 to 2010 and as presiding criminal judge from 2010 to 2013. He has presided over thousands of complex criminal, civil, and family cases that have gone to judgment by settlement, plea agreement, summary judgment, or dismissal. He previously worked in private practice as a partner at Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 1989 to 2000; a partner at McGroder, Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 1986 to 1989; McGroder, Tryon, Heller, Rayes & Berch from 1984 to 1986; and as an associate at McGroder, Pearlstein, Peppler & Tryon from 1982 to 1984. Following his graduation from law school, he served as Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army JAG Corps from 1979 to 1982. He served in the U.S. Army from 1970 to 1982 and in the Army Reserve from 1982 to 1985. Judge Rayes has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by a roll call vote of 16-2 on February 27, 2014. Judge James Soto has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2001 as a superior court judge in the Santa Cruz County Court. During his time on the bench, he has presided over 1,100 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to his judicial service, he worked in private practice for over two decades, including as a shareholder and president of Soto, Martin and Coogan, P.C. from 1992 to 2001. He worked as a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1979. He previously served as town attorney for the town of Patagonia from 1975 to 1992, deputy city attorney for the Office of the Nogales City Attorney from 1974 to 1983, and deputy county attorney for Santa Cruz County in 1975. Judge Soto has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 27, 2014. All of these nominees have the experience, judgment, and legal acumen to be terrific judges in our Federal courts. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions, and I hope all Senators will join me to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maryland who, just as he did when he was in the State legislature and has done every single day since he has been in the Senate, has been supportive of law enforcement and police officers. I am sorry there was an objection. I spoke earlier to my dear friend, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin. I told him that earlier today I chaired a hearing on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. The distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Delaware, was there, as were law enforcement officers from Delaware. During that hearing we heard from Officer Ann Carrizales of the Stafford, TX, police department. This was some of the most powerful testimony I have heard in my almost 40 years on that committee. She was shot in the face and chest during a routine traffic stop last year. She was saved by her protective vest. She returned fire and then pursued the suspects for 20 miles and ultimately helped a neighboring police jurisdiction apprehend the shooter--a determined police officer, former Marine, mother, and wife. We also heard from a police chief who will be staying here with law enforcement during National Police Week. We talked about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, which Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell--who served in law enforcement, a Republican from Colorado--and I first introduced, and for decades it has been passed unanimously. It saves lives. It is not a luxury item. Last week, I came to the Senate floor, seeking to do what this body has done 3 times before, and that is to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. My legislation to renew this life- saving program for another 5 years has the support of every Democrat in the Senate. It is strongly supported by leading law enforcement groups, and on a much more personal note, we know that vests provided by this program have protected thousands of officers and spared their families and loved ones from unspeakable grief. Officers like Officer Ann Carrizales. If her story does not inspire us all to support brave law enforcement officers by providing them with the most basic protection, then I do not know what could. She brought with her today almost 200 letters from her daughter's elementary school, all calling on the Senate to act. One of the letters I have is from her daughter MiKayla, talking about what her mother faced. This was powerful testimony. Unfortunately, my efforts to pass this important reauthorization were blocked last week by a Republican Senator who seems to think that bulletproof vests are a luxury item. Some Republican Senators also believe that the Federal Government has no role to play in assisting local law enforcement. I could not disagree more. We in Congress have long supported local law enforcement because we have a duty to keep our communities safe. Today, during National Police Week, Senators who say they stand with law enforcement should demonstrate their support and put real meaning behind those words by supporting two important bills. All Senators should support the passage of S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. To date, this program has enabled over 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests. It we act today, this program could help provide more vests to the law enforcement officers who protect us every day. We should also pass the National Blue Alert Act, a bill sponsored by Senators Cardin and Graham that would create a national alert system when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. We can put real meaning behind our rhetoric. These are commonsense bills and they should be enacted without further delay. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry for that because we will waste more money in 1 or 2 weeks in Afghanistan and Iraq, than this would cost for years--years--to protect American law enforcement, police officers who protect us every day. We ought to allow this matter to come to a vote and have everybody vote yes or no. The Senator from Vermont would vote yes. I know the Senator from Maryland would vote yes, and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer from Delaware would vote yes, as would every single Democratic Senator, and I believe a number of Republicans would. We will give great speeches this week saying we stand with law enforcement. Well, as some say, put up or shut up. Let's stand with them. Let's pass this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the next two nominations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning: Stakeholder Views.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 2:15 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Charting a Path Forward for the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards Programs.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wildfires and Forest Management: Prevention is Preservation.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program: Supporting Law Enforcement Officers When it Matters Most.'' The witness list is attached.