Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Collection, Analysis and Use of Elections Data: A Measured Approach to Improving Election Administration.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Role of Mitigation in Reducing Federal Expenditures for Disaster Response.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, the ranking member requested that the administration provide materials relating to Anwar Al-Awlaki so that all Senators would be able to properly evaluate Mr. Barron's nomination. The administration has now made available unredacted copies of any memo issued by Mr. Barron regarding the potential use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Awlaki. I hope and expect that all Senators will review these materials today. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we are again voting to overcome Republican filibusters of four highly qualified judicial nominees. The nominees are Judge Robin Rosenbaum to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Indira Talwani to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; James Peterson to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin; and Nancy Rosenstengel to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Before proceeding with the qualifications of these four judicial nominees, I would like to 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 Senate Republicans are placing a hold on Mr. Barron's nomination because they are seeking access to a Justice Department memorandum regarding Anwar Al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Since Senate Republicans have blocked every single judicial nominee this year from receiving an up-or-down vote, it comes as no surprise that they would attempt to block Mr. Barron as well. This is nothing new. As for the Justice Department memo, the majority leader and I have urged the administration to make the memo available to all Senators, and the administration has agreed. All Senators can review it for themselves. All members of the Judiciary Committee were previously able to review this memo, and now that his nomination is before the full Senate, it makes sense that all Senators will have that opportunity. I am confident that once we proceed with Mr. Barron's nomination, Senators will vote to confirm him. He is brilliant nominee who is currently a professor at Harvard Law School. He is a nationally recognized expert on constitutional law, the separation of powers, administrative law, and federalism. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens has such high regard for Mr. Barron that the Justice attended his nomination hearing. Mr. Barron has been an outstanding law professor and public servant. He has the credentials, expertise, and temperament to make an outstanding judge. As the acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel in the beginning of the Obama administration, one of Mr. Barron's first actions was to withdraw several of the torture memos that OLC issued during the Bush administration that found ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' lawful, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, and waterboarding. Mr. Barron has stood up for the rights of gay and lesbian students. In 2005, he coauthored amici briefs in the case Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which challenged the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment provided that if an institution of higher education denies military recruiters or ROTC programs access to campus, the entire institution would lose certain Federal funds. Until 2011, the Department of Defense discriminated based on sexual orientation, and many universities did not permit discrimination on campus. In response to a question for the record from Senator Grassley on the issue, Mr. Barron said: ``With respect to my participation along with other faculty members and my dean as amici in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, I believed it was important as a faculty member at Harvard Law School to help in the effort to ensure that gay and lesbian students at my institution continued to have equal opportunities to seek legal employment.'' Mr. Barron is truly an outstanding nominee, and I hope all Senators will support his nomination when it comes up. Today, we will vote to end the filibusters of four other very highly qualified nominees. Judge Robin Rosenbaum has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She has served since 2012 as a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of Florida, where she was previously a U.S. magistrate judge. Prior to her judicial service, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 1998 to 2007. Judge Rosenbaum has previously practiced at Holland & Knight, LLP, and as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division. In 1998, she served as a law clerk to Judge Stanley Marcus of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She has the bipartisan support of her home state senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on March 6, 2014. Indira Talwani has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She has worked in private practice at Segal Roitman, LLP, since 1999 and has been a partner at the firm since 2003. She has previously practiced at the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, where she was also a partner. After graduating from law school, Ms. Talwani served as law clerk to Judge Stanley Weigel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She has the support of her home State senators, Senator Warren and Senator Markey. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 6, 2014. James Peterson has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. He has worked in private practice at Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., since 1999, where he has been a shareholder since 2007. Mr. Peterson has served as lead counsel on at least 15 civil cases that have been litigated to judgment. He has also actively participated in nine jury trials, three of which he was lead counsel. Mr. Peterson has briefed and argued civil appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He has also authored two amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to his legal practice, Mr. Peterson has served as an adjunct instructor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Peterson ``well qualified'' to serve on the Western District of Wisconsin Court, its highest rating. He has the bipartisan support of his home State senators, Senator Johnson and Senator Baldwin. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 6, 2014. Nancy Rosenstengel has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She has served since 2009 as the clerk of court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She previously served for 11 years as a career law clerk to Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Illinois. As a career law clerk, she assisted Judge Murphy in hundreds of civil and criminal cases. She also worked in private practice at Sandberg, Phoenix, & von Gontard as an associate from 1993 to 1998. She earned her B.A. cum laude from the University of Illinois in 1990. She earned her J.D. with honors from the Southern Illinois University Law School in 1993, where she was as an editor on the Southern Illinois University Law Journal. She has the bipartisan support of her home State senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on March 6, 2014. Each of these nominees has the experience, judgment, and legal acumen to be good judges in our Federal courts. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions, and I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Graham and I introduced a bill to establish a National Commission on the Future of the Army, an independent panel that will bear the responsibility of analyzing some major changes to the U.S. Army that were proposed in the President's budget. The Army's budget for Fiscal Year 2015 sets a path toward major, irreversible changes to Army capacity and capability, particularly in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves, that cannot be ignored by the Congress. Senator Graham, my fellow co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, has said repeatedly that these changes fundamentally alter what it means for the National Guard to be a combat reserve of the Army. The changes would also render the Nation's operational reserve insufficient in its ability to retain gains in experience and readiness that the reserve has achieved over a decade of continuous deployment. Most dramatically, these changes would transfer all of the National Guard's AH-64 Apaches to the active component, leaving the Nation without any combat reserves for one of the aircraft most essential to ground operations. But the changes that the President's budget proposal would begin to make next year go much deeper. They would eventually reduce the Nation's Army National Guard to 315,000 soldiers, the fewest in decades. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, testified before the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense that this number is too low. General Odierno said that, at that level, if any of our assumptions about future conflict were wrong--that is unless operations were short, decisive, and did not require significant sustainability--then we would not be prepared. Our Nation's defense would be ill-prepared for future conflicts in the mold of past conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea. No one needs to be reminded of the tight fiscal constraints our government currently faces, and that sequestration, unfortunately, remains the law of the land. Simply barring any changes from taking place in America's Army is not an option. The legislation that Senator Graham and I propose will allow several of the Army's proposed cost- avoidance measures to move forward, while permitting time for a commission to study the major and truly controversial changes that have been proposed. In addition to tasking the commission with considering overall size and force mix of the Army, this legislation calls for an evaluation of force generation assumptions. That is because the policies put into place during 13 years of war are not the same as those that will be needed post-drawdown, and determining the right modifications is essential to planning for the use and structure of the Army of the next decade. Congress, under the authorities granted by the Constitution, has a responsibility to both raise and equip armies, and to regulate that portion of the militia which is called into Federal Service. When a budget proposal makes changes in those areas that are as considerable as these, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to hit the pause button and to ask for a second look. We look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we properly balance and size the Army, and that we do not repeat past mistakes by needlessly discarding the depth of our forces.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next week we are going to commemorate National Police Week, a time when the Nation pays tribute to the sacrifices made by all those who serve in law enforcement, particularly those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. These law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. We often speak eloquently on both sides of the aisle here about supporting law enforcement and their families. These tributes are important. They are well deserved. But the police officers in our communities deserve more than speeches; they deserve action and real support. We owe it to all who serve to help protect those who protect us. One important, tangible way to do so is to help provide them with lifesaving bulletproof vests. For more than 15 years the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has helped to provide bulletproof vests to law enforcement officers around the country. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell of Colorado and I worked across the aisle to design a program that helps local law enforcement agencies purchase bulletproof vests. We both had a background in law enforcement, and we drew on that. Mr. President, let me show you what has happened. Since 1987, this program has enabled over 13,000 State and local enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests. No one can dispute that this program saves lives. I will never forget a law enforcement officer who testified before our committee. He had his mother and father and his wife and children sitting behind him in the Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows how often we have witnesses speaking and their families are there. He said: I love law enforcement. I love law enforcement. The only thing I love more than law enforcement is my family. But there came a day as an officer when I thought I would never see my family again. It was when he stopped somebody in a routine traffic stop. The man came out of the car and shot him twice in the chest. He reached down underneath the witness table and pulled up the vest. You could see the two bullets still stuck in the vest. He said: I got a cracked rib out of it, but I saw my mother and father and my wife and children. I saw them when I was at the hospital, where they were treating me for the cracked rib. I saw them there. They did not have to go to the morgue to see me. That story is repeated all the time. No one disputes that this program saves lives. That is why Congress has historically acted quickly and decisively to support the bulletproof vests program. Between 2000 and 2010, the program enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. It was reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. This time around, every single Democratic Senator supports passage of the bill. It is also cosponsored by Senators Hagan, Cardin, Landrieu, Shaheen, Pryor, and Franken, to name just a few cosponsors. It has many other strong supporters of law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. For reasons I still do not understand, the bill is being blocked on the Republican side. Not a single Republican cosponsor has stepped forward. I cannot understand this. This has never been a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. We are doing this to protect the lives of police officers. Senator Grassley and I developed a bipartisan reauthorization that included improvements to the program. One important change is that agencies are now given a grant preference for purchasing vests that are uniquely fitted to women officers. There are far more women as police officers today than there were even when Senator Ben Nighthorse- Campbell and I first introduced this bill. The program is now stronger than ever. I think the vast majority of Senators want to see this program reauthorized. I do not know why Republican Senators have blocked it, especially when we are now protecting, as we had not before, women police officers too. I do not know how we can turn our backs on our police officers. I would also urge support for the National Blue Alert Act, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee with a strong bipartisan vote. It is sponsored by Senators Cardin and Graham. I am a proud cosponsor. The bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which I coauthored with Republican Senator John Cornyn and which reauthorizes important programs such as the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program--named after a former Republican Senator--is another important bill to law enforcement that we should approve without further delay. It actually defies common sense that any Senator would object to these pieces of legislation. Next week I will attend, as I almost always do, the National Peace Officers Memorial Service, and there will be a wreath-laying at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which now contains the names of over 20,000 fallen officers. I remember shortly after I became State's attorney going to the funeral of one of those fallen officers. I have never forgotten that--even though it was decades ago--the long line of police cars, with blue lights flashing. Snow was coming down, and the blue lights reflected off the snowflakes. The names, unfortunately, do not just stop with those over 20,000 fallen officers. The names of 286 fallen officers will be added to its walls, serving as another somber reminder of the brave men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives each and every day. They work tirelessly to keep our communities safe. They deserve our best efforts to do the same for them. I am, in a moment, going to ask consent that the Senate pass S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. It has always been bipartisan. We should not let ideology put officers' lives at risk now. I commend the fact that every single Democratic Senator supports it and we can honor the service of those who keep us safe by protecting their lives with bulletproof vests. Frankly, if somebody stands with law enforcement, now is the time to stand with them. I can assure you--and they will assure you--it matters here, and it matters to them. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Well, Mr. President, I am sorry to hear this. I hear people who supported a useless war in Iraq, and they will talk about how much money we spend. It was the first time in America's history----

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will go back to what I said, it did not refer to him. I worry about those, however, who voted for that war and did not vote to stop that war and voted for the very first time that this country has ever gone to war in its history without a tax to pay for it. We voted for it on a credit card--an unnecessary war, a war that hurt the interests of the United States, and it will eventually cost us $2 trillion. Nobody--nobody--talks about paying for that. But to protect the police officers, who are on the street every day protecting us, oh, we cannot do that. We cannot do that, even though we have done so before. I could name the six police officers who were killed in Oklahoma. I am not going to. I am not trying to make this personal. But the Presiding Officer understands law enforcement. She supported this. Everybody on this side of the aisle supports it. It is to protect our police officers. We will spend $2 trillion on a useless war, but we will not spend a tiny fraction of 1 percent--one one-thousandth of 1 percent--to support our men and women, especially when we now have a provision in here to protect women police officers as well as men police officers. What could be more--what could be more--nonpartisan than this? That is why Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I joined together, why Republicans and Democrats have joined together. I am proud that every Democratic Senator is in favor of this legislation. I wish the Republicans would lift their objection. We should pass this bill. If you stand with law enforcement, then you need to stand with them when it matters most. I can assure you--and they can assure you--it matters here, and it matters now. I yield the floor. I think I have expressed my dismay that the other side of the aisle would not stand up to protect these police officers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to confirm Nancy Moritz to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Nancy Moritz is currently a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court, where she has been serving since 2011. She has the qualifications and has the support of her two Republican home State Senators, Mr. Pat Roberts and Mr. Jerry Moran. She was also reported from the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote this past January. The Republicans continue to object to votes on all judicial nominations, even for completely noncontroversial nominees such as Justice Moritz. Cloture was finally invoked on Justice Moritz's nomination last week. There is no reason her nomination should have been filibustered given the bipartisan support that she has. In fact, Justice Moritz should and could have been confirmed last year. She was first nominated last August, but her hearing was delayed until mid-November because of the Republican shutdown of the Federal Government. Senate Republicans then refused to vote on her nomination in committee at the end of last year and her nomination was returned to the President. As a result, the President had to renominate Justice Moritz and the Judiciary Committee had to reprocess her nomination this year. When we finally confirm Justice Moritz today, her nomination will have taken more than 9 months. It should not take this long to process noncontroversial nominees. Justice Moritz has now served on the Kansas Supreme Court for nearly 4 years. Prior to joining the Kansas Supreme Court, she was an appellate judge on the Kansas Court of Appeals from 2004 to 2011. Before becoming a judge, she spent nearly 10 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Kansas City and Topeka offices. From 1989 until 1995, she was an associate at Spencer, Fane Britt & Browne, LLP in Kansas City and Overland Park. From 1987 to 1989, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patrick F. Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Her breadth and depth of experience as both a practitioner and a jurist will make her well suited to serve on the Tenth Circuit. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to confirm this excellent nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Terry Gainer, the Senate's skilled and energetic Sergeant At Arms, is leaving the Senate family, after 8 years of devoted service to the Senate and the Nation in this vital role. Overseeing the Senate's largest administrative office, Terry Gainer has led during a difficult time of change, as the Senate has continued to adjust to a wide range of challenges, from burgeoning technology, to budget squeezes, to the shadowy threat of terrorism. I have watched the way he has handled these duties, and I have admired not only his talent and ability but also the style of his leadership. He has been a credit to this body. Terry Gainer is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war. He was a captain in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and he went on to serve as an accomplished law enforcement officer. Appointed to the post of Sergeant At Arms in 2006, Mr. Gainer came to the Senate with an admirable record of public service. He cut his teeth as a homicide detective on the streets of Chicago, and while working on the Chicago force he earned both a master's and a law degree. From there, he rose through the ranks to be appointed as director of the Illinois State Police. In 2002, he assumed the role of chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. It was just a few, short years later, when the Senate was attacked with ricin poison, that Terry Gainer's calm disposition, professionalism, and experience guided the Senate through a malicious act of terrorism. Chief Gainer then carried over this experience as he took on his new role as the 38th U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms. Frequently described as a jack-of-all-trades, he fit right in. From overseeing security, to escorting foreign dignitaries, and leading the largest administrative office in the Senate, Terry Gainer was a valued leader and a trusted presence within the Senate family. As he returns to the private sector, Marcelle and I offer Terry, his wife Irene, and the Gainer family our thanks and all best wishes in the years ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the work of the Washington Electric Cooperative, which provides power and electricity to thousands of Vermonters, including to Marcelle and me at our home in Middlesex. This year the co-op, as it is better known to Vermonters, celebrates its 75th anniversary. The co-op formed in the midst of the rural electrification movement of the 1930s. On December 2, 1939, my predecessor in the Senate, then-Vermont Governor George Aiken, flipped the switch that brought electricity to 150 farms. I doubt that anyone could have imagined back then that the co-op would grow to serve the 11,000 members it serves today, covering about 2800 square miles in parts of 41 towns in north-central Vermont. The Washington Electric Co-Op has indeed grown, from the setting of the first poles on the McKnight Farm in East Montpelier, to operating 1200 miles of distribution lines with eight substations today. I am proud of the Washington Electric Co-Op, both as a customer and as a Vermonter. In honor of this important occasion, I ask that the article ``How the Washington Electric Co-op Began'' from the 1964 Washington Electric Co- op annual meeting be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, the Senate came together to pass meaningful legislation that was supported by victims of violence, law enforcement, and those committed to working to end domestic and sexual abuse. That bill, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, had the support of all Senate Democrats and a majority of Senate Republicans. It cleared the Republican House overwhelmingly and it was signed into law 1 year ago. In a divided Congress, this historic reauthorization was made possible because so many victims and service providers stood together to push for a comprehensive bill. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which I was proud to co-author with Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, strengthens protections on campuses, where far too many students have become victims of devastating violence instead of enjoying the wonderful experience of learning and growth that we all wish for our children. Our bill, which was signed into law last year, ensures that college students are informed of the resources available to them if they are victims of sexual assault or stalking, and of their school's planned response to such crimes. For women like Laura Dunn, these provisions have real meaning. When many skeptics called for a watered-down VAWA bill to make it easier to pass, champions like Ms. Dunn, a courageous survivor of campus sexual assault, urged us to stand strong for all victims. More than 200 survivors of campus violence at 176 colleges and universities joined her in an open letter to Congress calling for the passage of the Leahy- Crapo VAWA bill. People like her made all the difference in our ability to ultimately pass this important legislation. One year after its enactment, I am heartened that the Obama administration has begun to implement the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill and that it announced a series of steps that will help colleges and universities meet new requirements contained in the law. This includes stronger reporting requirements and better training for university officials, more coordination between campus police and local law enforcement, and the implementation of privacy policies to protect the identity of victims. I can remember the horrific scenes I witnessed when I was a prosecutor in Vermont. I can also remember that I never asked a victim about their nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. As I have said countless times, a victim is a victim is a victim. Providing a victim with the services they need in a safe and private environment is common sense and I am glad the Obama administration is making the protections Senator Crapo and I fought for a reality for students across the country. We cannot stop there, however, and we should be doing even more to protect all victims of crime. That is why I urge my fellow Senators to support the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. This comprehensive and bipartisan legislation was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act protects victims of crime by providing them with the resources they need and enhancing protections for crime victims. It also helps to prevent and overturn wrongful convictions, and provides law enforcement with the tools and resources necessary to ensure justice for all. The Justice for All Act reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while rape kits languish in storage. It also strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first death row inmate in the United States to be exonerated through the use of DNA evidence. There are certainly others out there like Kirk Bloodsworth now, wrongly convicted, waiting for the day when a DNA test will prove their innocence and set them free. We must never stop trying to improve our imperfect criminal justice system, to bring closure to cases swiftly but accurately, and to correct mistakes when they happen. The Justice for All Act reauthorizes funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, which assists laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting offenders. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act is a bipartisan bill that Senator Cornyn and I introduced nearly 1 year ago. All Senate Democrats support passage of this bill, and it is even cosponsored by the minority leader, Senator McConnell, but it has not passed the Senate because some Senate Republicans object. In the face of this obstruction, some would have us pick apart pieces of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, with the hope that we can do the other pieces later. To me, to law enforcement, and to countless victims of crime, this is not acceptable. Just last year, we showed the country it was possible to stand with all victims of domestic and sexual violence when we ignored the critics in the House who tried to divide us. When they told us we could only protect some victims, we refused to let them pit survivors of injustice against one another. By remaining unified in the face of such efforts, this divided Congress was able to pass a historic Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that for the first time provided key protections for college students, tribal women, and members of the LGBT community. This year, we should again stand by all victims of crime and do what is right by passing a comprehensive Justice for All Reauthorization Act. We should not let the House of Representatives lessen our resolve to reauthorize public safety programs widely supported by crime victims and law enforcement. I remain steadfast in my resolve to get this done. I know every Senate Democrat shares this resolve, and I know that law enforcement, civil rights leaders, victims groups, and countless others feel the same way. I hope Senate Republicans will join us to pass meaningful legislation that supports all victims of crime and upholds our system of justice. We should stand united for all victims. I urge all senators, and particularly those in the Republican Caucus, to clear the Justice for All Act without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we are again voting to overcome Republican filibusters of three highly qualified judicial nominees. Republicans continue to refuse to consent to vote on much needed judges to our Federal Judiciary. We currently stand at 80 vacancies and have not had fewer than 60 vacancies since February 2009, at the beginning of President Obama's first term. For most of President Obama's tenure in office, judicial vacancies have continued to hover around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to votes on these nominations. This includes the three nominations that we are voting on today. Nancy Moritz has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Justice Moritz is currently a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court, where she has been serving since 2011. Prior to joining the Kansas Supreme Court, she was an appellate judge on the Kansas Court of Appeals from 2004 to 2011. Before becoming a judge, Justice Moritz spent nearly ten years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Kansas City and Topeka offices. From 1989 till 1995, she was an associate at Spencer, Fane Britt & Browne, LLP in Kansas City and Overland Park. From 1987 to 1989, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patrick F. Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Justice Moritz has the support of her Republican home state senators, Senator Roberts and Senator Moran. She was also reported from the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote on January 16, 2014. Theodore Chuang has been nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Since 2009, Mr. Chuang has served in the Office of General Counsel at the Department of Homeland Security. He currently serves as deputy general counsel and as counsel on detail to the U.S. Department of State. Previously, Mr. Chuang served as the chief investigative counsel for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the deputy chief investigative counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms from 2007 to 2009. From 2004 to 2007, Mr. Chuang worked in private practice as a counsel at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Prior to that, Mr. Chuang served as an assistant U.S. attorney, Criminal Division, for the District of Massachusetts from 1998 to 2004 and as a trial attorney in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Justice Department from 1995 to 1998. Upon graduating from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, Mr. Chuang served as a law clerk to Judge Dorothy W. Nelson on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals from 1994 to 1995. Mr. Chuang has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote on January 16, 2014. During the committee vote, the ranking member urged others to vote ``No'' based on the fact that Mr. Chuang has been serving on temporary detail to the State Department and has been working with the agency to assist in its response to the ongoing congressional investigation into Benghazi. The ranking member argued that because the administration has refused to turn over interview notes and summaries that he would vote ``No'' on Mr. Chuang's nomination. This appears to be a case where Mr. Chuang is being held responsible for the decisions of the administration not to turn over the documents when it was not his decision to make. Moreover, Mr. Chuang has responded to the ranking member's Question for the Record on this issue fully and forthrightly, and nothing in those responses indicates that Mr. Chuang has conducted himself improperly in any way. Mr. Chuang is a superbly qualified attorney with an impeccable background, and should be supported by the entire Senate. George Hazel has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Since 2010, he has served as the chief deputy State's attorney for the office of the Maryland State's attorney for Baltimore City. Prior to taking this position, he was an assistant U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland from 2008 to 2010 and for the District of Columbia from 2005 to 2008. From 1999 to 2004, Mr. Hazel also served in private practice at the law firm Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP. An experienced trial counsel, Mr. Hazel has tried approximately 50 cases to verdict. Mr. Hazel also has the support of his home State senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. He was reported from the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote on January 16, 2014. All three of these nominees have the experience, judgment, and legal acumen to be terrific judges in our Federal courts. Let us end these unnecessary filibusters. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions and I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time before the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court once again chose to dismantle campaign finance laws which had protected hard-working Americans for decades. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a sharply divided Court held that aggregate limits on campaign contributions are a violation of the First Amendment. These were the same five justices who, just 4 years ago, reversed a century of precedent in Citizens United by declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to endlessly finance and influence elections. Rather than increasing access and encouraging participation for all Americans, this Court continues to rule against our democratic principles and in favor of moneyed interests. The Court's recent dismantling of campaign finance laws has been devastating. As Justice Breyer warned in his dissent: Taken together with Citizens United, [the McCutcheon] decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve. I could not agree with him more. Nobody who has watched our elections or even tried to watch television since the Citizens United decision can deny the enormous impact that decision has had on our political process. In small states like Vermont, that decision coupled with McCutcheon poses an even greater risk. I have heard time and again from Vermonters concerned about these toxic effects, and I agree that something must be done. That is why I have cosponsored the DISCLOSE Act since 2010 to restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws, and that is why we have held multiple hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the impact of these alarming Supreme Court decisions. Earlier this month I announced that the Judiciary Committee would have another hearing on this issue. That hearing will take place in June. We will hear testimony from individuals who have witnessed the real impact these harmful decisions have had on Americans seeking to exercise their right to vote and to be heard. The Judiciary Committee's hearing will also take place close to the anniversary of yet another devastating Supreme Court decision. Last June, as the Nation prepared to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech, the same narrow majority of the Supreme Court struck down the coverage provision of the Voting Rights Act and effectively gutted the most successful piece of civil rights legislation in this Nation's history in Shelby County v. Holder. The Voting Rights Act, including the coverage formula and Section 5, was reauthorized and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006, after the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 390-33 in favor of the reauthorization. Yet the Court struck down a key provision of the Act despite the fact that it has worked to protect the Constitution's guarantees against racial discrimination in voting for nearly five decades. In striking down the coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act, the Court dramatically undercut Section 5's ability to protect American voters from racial discrimination in voting. The result is that many Americans who were protected by this law have now been left vulnerable to discriminatory practices and have had much greater difficulty accessing the ballot box. Along with other lawmakers, I have introduced a bipartisan and bicameral bill, S. 1945, to respond to the Court's decision and would reinvigorate the most vital protections of the Act. I hope Senate Republicans will work with me on this important effort. This current Supreme Court's pattern of denying access to the ballot box for everyday Americans while expanding the ability of billionaires and corporations to buy elections is disturbing, to say the least. In an article by Ari Berman at The Nation dated April 2, the author states that ``The Court's conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination.'' Since the Court's ruling in Shelby County, eight states previously covered under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act have since passed or implemented new voting restrictions and voters are already seeing the consequences of that lack of protection. Mr. Berman concludes that ``[a] country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn't sound much like a functioning democracy to me.'' I agree and I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Sara Mayeux at Harvard Law School observed that the Court began its McCutcheon opinion by noting that ``There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders'' yet, this same narrow majority discarded that very principle just last year when it struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County--a case that was much more about the right to participate in electing our political leaders than this one. The observation is consistent with the disturbing trend exhibited by this Court in Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Shelby County, which is that the Court underscores and endorses the rights of corporations and billionaires to participate in our democracy, and yet dismisses that same right for the average American to participate in our elections and to vote free from discrimination. Every American should understand how devastating these rulings are to our system of democracy. Time and again, this narrow majority of conservative Justices has substituted their own preferences for those of the duly-elected Congress, despite the Supreme Court's own precedents. This Court's disregard for Congressional findings about both the threat of corruption and the irreparable harm of racial discrimination in voting demonstrates how out of touch with reality some of the Justices have become. These sharply-divided rulings undermine the fundamental concept that our democracy is supposed to work for all Americans. I will continue to work on behalf of the American people to see that all Americans and not just a wealthy few will continue to have a right to participate in our representative democracy and to have their voices heard.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken several times in the past few weeks--and I have spoken many times in the past 20 years--about the scourge of landmines. They are inherently indiscriminate weapons. They are triggered by the victim, and usually the victim is an innocent civilian who is either killed or horribly maimed. The United States has not exported, produced, or used antipersonnel mines for more than 20 years. But notwithstanding that--even though 161 nations have joined the international treaty banning them--one nation stands out for not having joined the treaty. That is the United States, and it is a shame on this country. As the world's only superpower with by far the most powerful military, one would have thought the United States would set an example of moral leadership. Instead, we are among those who are preventing the universality of the treaty. This is doubly disappointing, considering that it was President Clinton who, 20 years ago, called for the elimination of antipersonnel mines. Two years later, in 1996--back in the last century--he said: ``Today I am launching an international effort to ban anti-personnel landmines.'' But his administration did not sign the treaty. Then we had the Bush administration. They did nothing on the issue. Now we have the Obama administration. Nothing has changed. The Obama administration is following the Bush administration's policy of doing nothing. So we are still waiting. Last week I was in Vietnam, along with Senators Shelby and Crapo and Representatives Cooper from Tennessee and Welch from Vermont. We had conversations with President Sang, with the Minister of Defense, and other Vietnamese officials. But we also met with nongovernmental organizations--many of them Americans--that work to locate and clear landmines and other unexploded ordnance. It is costly, dangerous work. They have been doing it for decades. At the current rate, when you consider that millions of landmines and bombs were dropped in Vietnam during the war, it is estimated that it will take another 100 years before it is safe to walk in that country without fear of triggering a deadly explosion. I have met countless people in Vietnam who have been crippled and disfigured by landmines. Many of them are children the age of my grandchildren. Here is a photograph of two Vietnamese men I met last week. You can see what landmines do. My wife Marcelle and I were deeply touched when we spoke with them. After all the pain and hardship they have suffered, they were thanking us for helping to get them wheelchairs. Their lives have been changed terribly forever, yet they are lucky because they survived. They lost their legs, their arms, but thankfully they are not among the tens of thousands who died from landmines during that war and in the decades since the war ended. In Vietnam, we have used the Leahy War Victims Fund to provide medical care and rehabilitation to thousands of mine victims. As a Democrat, I want to compliment a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, who worked with me and with the inspired founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, Bobby Muller, to start using the Leahy War Victims Fund in Vietnam. We have spent many millions of dollars to help get rid of the mines. As I said earlier, 40 years after the war, there are still vast areas of Vietnam littered with unexploded mines and bombs. Yet Vietnam is only one of dozens of countries whose people have been terrorized by landmines--some from our country, some from others. When you talk to the Department of Defense about this, they say their mines are ``smart'' because they are designed to deactivate after a finite period of time. Of course, that is better than mines that remain active for years. But if a child steps on one before the time they are deactivated, that child does not know whether this is a smart mine or a dumb mine because as long as they are active, they are no better at distinguishing between a child and a soldier. I remember the young woman I met in a hospital after the Bosnia war. She was sent away by her parents to be safe during that conflict. But when the war ended she was running down the road to greet her parents and had both legs blown off. The war was over, but it never ended for her. I have never argued that mines have no military utility. Every weapon does. So does poison gas, so do IEDs. But we would not use them, and we consider it immoral for other people to use them. They are the antithesis of a precision weapon. They do not belong in the arsenal of civilized countries, least of all in the United States. The United States ought to have courage enough to sign the landmine treaty. You have to wonder, if Pennsylvania or Oklahoma or Utah or Georgia or Vermont or New Jersey or any of our 50 States were littered with landmines, killing and maiming innocent Americans, would we tolerate it? Of course not. We would not make excuses about needing to use these weapons. The outcry would be deafening and the United States would join the treaty, as we should have 15 years ago. Some might ask why this matters. The United States has not used mines for two decades, even while we fought two long land wars. That is because the political price of using them--particularly in Afghanistan where more innocent civilians have been killed or injured from landmines than perhaps anywhere else--would have been prohibitive. It matters because, like any other issue, even when the United States is not part of the problem, we have to be part of the solution. We ought to set an example on this. We ought to be strong enough to do what 161 other countries have done and join the treaty. I have spoken to President Obama about this. I know he shares my concern about the toll of innocent lives from landmines. As a Senator, he cosponsored my legislation. So did Secretary Hagel. This is an unfinished job. It began with President Clinton. It is time to put the United States on a path to join the treaty. Only the Commander in Chief can do that. The world cries out to him to show that kind of moral leadership.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, events in Egypt continue to concern people of good will in this country and across the globe, who have shared the Egyptian people's yearning for greater freedom under the rule of law. I am the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the State Department and foreign operations. But even if I were not chairman of that subcommittee, I would have been watching the situation in Egypt with great interest and growing dismay, where hundreds of people are sentenced to death after a sham trial lasting barely an hour. It is appalling to see this flouting of human rights and abuse of the justice system, which are fundamental to any democracy. Nobody--nobody--can justify this. It does not show a commitment to democracy. It shows a dictatorship run amok. It is an egregious violation of human rights. So I am not prepared to sign off on the delivery of additional aid for the Egyptian military. I am not prepared to do that until we see convincing evidence the government is committed to the rule of law. We cannot stand here and say: We are troubled by hundreds of people being sentenced to death after a few minutes in a mass trial, but since we have been friends for so long we will go ahead and send you hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. No. I do not think the taxpayers of this country would condone that, and neither do I. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to end filibusters on the nominations of Sheryl Lipman to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Stanley Bastian to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Manish Shah to a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel Crabtree to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Cynthia Bashant to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and Judge Jon Levy to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. These are just 6 of the 31 judicial nominees currently pending on the Senate Floor. Every single one of these nominees was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and every single one of these nominees has the support of their home State Senators. Nevertheless, we are once again being forced to follow the costly ritual of filing and voting on cloture for non-controversial nominees and wasting valuable floor time repeating this exercise. Meanwhile, it is our Federal Judiciary and the American people who suffer from these delays. I recently heard remarks from the Minority Leader claiming that ``many of these nominees would have been confirmed last December had we not'' instituted the rules change. This statement is simply belied by the facts. Senate Republicans have obstructed and slowed the nominations process throughout this President's entire tenure--in both his first and second terms. At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans 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. This has happened at the conclusion of every single year of the Obama presidency. 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. In 2010 and 2011, 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. In 2012, Senate Republicans left 11 judicial nominees without action and another four had hearings but Republicans refused to expedite their consideration. In 2013, Senate Republicans left 9 nominations on the Executive Calendar. Another 15 judicial nominees could have been reported to the full Senate and confirmed by the end of last year, but Senate Republicans blocked the Judiciary Committee's ability to meet to report these nominees to the full Senate. So, the idea that the rules change has somehow triggered Republican obstruction is simply not true. This has been a persistent and coordinated effort since the very beginning of the Obama presidency, and the rules change was an attempt to overcome some of these tactics of delay and obstruction. I have also seen reports lately that President Obama is now outpacing President George W. Bush in terms of judicial nominees confirmed at the same point in their presidencies. It is true that at this point in their respective presidencies, President Bush had 232 nominees confirmed while this President has had 235 nominees confirmed. This is certainly welcome news. I would note, however, that this statistic paints a very incomplete picture of what needs to be done. Although there have been slightly more nominees confirmed, the vacancies are much higher at this point in this president's tenure than in President Bush's tenure. In April 2006, there were only 54 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. In stark contrast, as of April 2014, there are currently 85 vacancies in the Federal judiciary--31 vacancies more than existed at the same point in President Bush's tenure. The comparison is even more troubling when you consider the 31 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. We could lower the number of judicial vacancies today to 54 if Senate Republicans would consent to voting on all of the pending nominees. We have not had fewer than 60 vacancies since February 2009, at the beginning of President Obama's first term. And for most of President Obama's tenure in office, judicial vacancies have continued to hover around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to votes on these nominations. These 6 nominees for whom we are voting to invoke cloture on today were nominated last August and September. It is about time that we held a vote on their nominations. All 6 nominees are well qualified and we should end these filibusters and confirm them as soon as possible. Sheryl Lipman has served as University Counsel to the University of Memphis since 2002, where she has also served as interim chief of staff to the president of the university and senior attorney. Prior to her work for the University of Memphis, she worked for nearly a decade in private practice at various law firms. Following her graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk to Judge Julia Gibbons of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Ms. Lipman has the support of her home State Republican Senators, Senator Corker and Senator Alexander. The Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. Stanley Bastian has worked in private practice for over 15 years and currently serves as a managing partner at the law firm Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, P.S. From 1985 to 1988, he served as an Assistant City Attorney in the Seattle City Attorney's Office, from 1984 to 1985 he served as a law clerk to Judge Ward Williams of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division I. Mr. Bastian previously served as the president of the Washington State Bar Association. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, its highest rating. The Judiciary Committee reported him unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. Manish Shah has served in the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois since 2001. He has served as the chief of the Criminal Division since 2012, and previously served as the chief of Criminal Appeals, deputy chief of Financial Crimes & Special Prosecutions, and deputy chief of General Crimes. He also served as a law clerk to Judge James Zagel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois from 1999 to 2001. Mr. Shah was awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director's Award for Outstanding Criminal Investigation in 2008 and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Director's Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team in 2007. He earned his B.A. with honors and distinction from Stanford University in 1994. He earned his J.D. with honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 1998. He has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk. The Judiciary Committee reported him unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. If confirmed, he would be the first South Asian judge to serve on a Federal court in Illinois. Daniel Crabtree has worked as a partner at Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, LLP since 2002. He previously worked in private practice for 21 years at Stinson, Mag & Fizzel. He has also served as the general counsel for the Kansas City Royals Baseball Club and Walsworth Publishing Company since 2008. In private practice, he has provided pro bono legal services through the Volunteer Attorney Project of the Legal Aid Office of the Western District of Missouri. Mr. Crabtree has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator Moran and Senator Roberts. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Judiciary Committee reported him unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. Judge Cynthia Bashant has served as a California State judge in San Diego Superior Court since 2000, and for 3 years as the court's presiding judge, 2010-2013. During her 13 years on the bench, she has presided over approximately 100 jury trials and over 1,000 bench trials. Prior to her judicial service, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California, 1989-2000, and worked in private practice at Baker and McKenzie (1988-1989) and at McDonald Halsted and Laybourne, 1986-1988. In private practice, she provided pro bono legal services to the San Diego Volunteer Lawyers Program and the American Civil Liberties Union. While serving as an assistant U.S. attorney, she received six Special Commendations for Outstanding Performance. Judge Bashant has the support of her home State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. The Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. Justice Jon Levy has served as an associate justice on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court since 2002. He previously served as a state judge in York, ME, as chief judge, 2001-2002, deputy chief judge, 2000- 2001, and as a district court judge for Maine's Tenth Judicial District (1995-2000). Prior to his judicial service, he worked in private practice for more than a decade. He previously served as a special monitor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 1981-1982. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge John Copenhaver, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, 1979-1981. He is a member of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. As a leader in the Maine Justice Action Group, he has promoted pro bono involvement throughout Maine's legal community. Justice Levy has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, Senator King and Senator Collins. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate on January 16, 2014. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed judges. I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than 2 weeks ago, the Senate voted to end the filibuster on the nomination of Michelle Friedland of California to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate had to overcome a Republican filibuster of a highly qualified circuit court nominee. In stark contrast, the Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit nominees within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The Ninth Circuit is the busiest circuit court in the country. It has the highest number of appeals filed, the highest pending appeals per panel and the highest pending appeals per active judge. It also takes far longer than any other circuit court to resolve an appeal. The delay in resolving these appeals hurts the American people. After the confirmation last month of John Owens and what I expect will be today's confirmation of Michelle Friedland, the Ninth Circuit will be operating at full strength for the first time in more than 9 years. This is an important milestone, but we should not stop there. There are five additional circuit court nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. I hope that Senators who care about Americans having access to the courts will allow the Senate to confirm these nominees without further delay. Michelle Friedland is an exceptionally talented attorney, who like the other 19 judicial nominees confirmed earlier this year, could and should have been confirmed last year. She was first nominated last August and after her hearing was delayed due to the Republican shutdown of our government, she finally came before the Judiciary Committee for a hearing in early November. In January, Ms. Friedland's nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and she has the strong support of both of her home state Senators--Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. Nevertheless, we were once again forced to follow the costly ritual of filing and voting on cloture and wasting valuable floor time. There is no good reason we could not have voted to confirm Ms. Friedland last year, and there is no good reason that we did not have a vote to confirm her 2 weeks ago. Meanwhile, it is our Federal judiciary and the American people who suffer from these delays. If confirmed, Michelle Friedland would increase the gender diversity on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She would be the seventeenth woman to ever sit on this appellate court. In comparison, 83 men have been appointed to the Ninth Circuit over the course of its history. Her confirmation will bring the percentage of active female judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nearly 38 percent. Her confirmation will also mark the first time since the 29th judgeship was added in 2007, that it has had a full complement of active judges serving on this busy appellate court. I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to confirm Michele Friedland to the Ninth Circuit so that she can get to work for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we celebrate the 30th annual National Crime Victims' Rights Week, and the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Victims of Crime Act. It is a time to recognize the losses faced by victims of crime and their families, and to acknowledge the efforts of those who work so hard to ensure the protection and well-being of crime victims in Vermont and across the nation. It is also a time to reflect on all that we have accomplished together over the past three decades, and to focus on what more we must do to support and protect victims of crime. I have long supported victims of crime through the Victims of Crime Act, and I was proud to cosponsor the Senate resolution supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week 2014. One of our most effective tools to serve and support victims is the Crime Victims Fund. In 1984, the Senate voted to pass the Victims of Crime Act--VOCA--which created the Fund. The Fund is rightfully sustained by criminal fines and penalties, not by taxpayer dollars, and provides funding and support for victim services across the country. These services include funding for victim assistance, and compensation programs to help with medical, funeral, and burial costs, mental health counseling, and lost wages. In 1996, after the Oklahoma City bombing, I supported the creation of an Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve Fund to support communities in the wake of acts of mass violence. These funds provide emergency relief and assistance in the wake of tragedies that might otherwise overwhelm the resources of the State's crime victim compensation and victim assistance services. That Emergency Reserve Fund has been used to support communities in the aftermath of shootings at Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown, and most recently to cover longer term victim assistance for the marathon bombing victims in Boston. The Office of Victims of Crime also provides funding directly to other federal agencies to support assistance to victims of mass violence and terrorism, including the Department of the Army following the 2011 Fort Hood shooting. The Crime Victims Fund has a long history of supporting victims of crime. I am grateful that in the Fiscal Year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, we were able to raise the cap on the Fund by $15 million. This is a historic and hard-won achievement that translates to more money for victims' assistance grants. Yet despite the increase, support for direct victim assistance remains 13 percent behind where funding levels were 15 years ago. As a result, 1.3 million fewer victims today are receiving help funded under VOCA. It is clear that more work remains to be done on behalf of victims of crime. This year, I led a letter with Senator Crapo requesting that the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies set the cap on obligations from the Fund as high as possible. As States are forced to tighten their belts, victim services are being cut all over the country. Without Federal assistance from this trust fund, victims' compensation programs and victims' assistance programs and services would be unavailable to many. I am also proud to be the lead sponsor of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which is another important measure that strengthens crime victims' rights and improves crime victims' services. This bipartisan bill was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2013 and every Democratic Senator has cleared this bill for immediate passage by the Senate. This is a strong, comprehensive bill that has the support of many Senators, including Senators Cornyn and McConnell. There is no reason that this important bill should not be passed as soon as possible. This legislation reauthorizes the original Justice for All Act of 2004. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. This legislation strengthens key rights for crime victims, reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, includes provisions to improve the quality of indigent defense, and increases access to post- conviction DNA testing to protect the innocent. It strengthens the rights guaranteed to crime victims in the criminal justice process and ensures that basic services, like the rapid testing of rape kits, help victims receive the justice, safety and closure they deserve. This legislation also increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. This vital program assists forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting those who commit those crimes so that victims have peace of mind knowing that justice will be served. I urge my fellow senators to support the passage of this vital legislation. I was also extremely proud when the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 was signed into law last year by President Obama. This is legislation, which I introduced with Senator Crapo, reauthorized the critical Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. When we enacted VAWA 20 years ago, it sent a powerful message that we will not tolerate crimes against women, and the law forever altered the way our Nation combats domestic and sexual violence. Just as it did nearly 20 years ago, this reauthorization offers support to the victims of these terrible crimes and helps them find safety and rebuild their lives. It was crafted with a great deal of input from victims and the tireless professionals who work to support them every day, and I am grateful for their support and assistance. The VAWA reauthorization takes responsible and moderate steps, in this case to protect immigrant and Native women, and ensuring services to all victims, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This legislation also includes new protections to prevent stalking and campus assault. It is particularly fitting to talk about this in April, which is also Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. I am glad that the Senate was able to quickly move on this bipartisan bill and ensure it was passed in a timely manner. The reauthorization of VAWA was approved by the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78-22. This is an issue that has and should continue to transcend partisanship, and we did just that last year when an overwhelming majority of the Senate voted in favor of VAWA. I hope we can continue to work together to support women's and victims' rights in the future. This includes supporting the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act, another bipartisan bill that I introduced in March. This legislation represents a comprehensive and commonsense approach toward guaranteeing the effectiveness and scientific integrity of forensic evidence used in criminal cases. It is critical that Americans have faith in their criminal justice system, and this legislation aims to achieve that by promoting national accreditation and certification standards and stronger oversight for forensic labs and practitioners. The Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act ensures that reform efforts will be guided by experts and practitioners with both criminal justice expertise and scientific independence, and it establishes consistent standards in the forensic science disciplines. I am glad to be working with Senator Cornyn on this important effort. I have always supported and will continue to support victims' rights. As we recognize the horrific losses victims of crimes have endured, it is important that we work towards lessening the effects of these tragedies and help victims can recover and rebuild. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that crime victims are never forgotten, and that they have our strong and enduring support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, I spoke on the Senate floor about a friend from my hometown of Montpelier, VT, GEN Richard Cody. General Cody left Montpelier--one of our Nation's smallest State capital--to serve his country, beginning as a student at West Point. He had an outstanding military career serving all over the world and culminating with his service as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. General Cody recently returned to Vermont, where he was honored by his alma mater, Montpelier High School. Prior to the testimonial dinner saluting him, General Cody went back to the high school, where he inspired students with his patriotism and commitment to making a positive difference in the world. In fact, his student audience was so inspired with this tremendous leader that he received a standing ovation at the end of his remarks. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article by Amy Nixon published in the April 5, 2014, edition of the Barre- Montpelier Times Argus in honor of General Cody's return to Vermont.