Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the outstanding achievements of Ms. Lois McClure, voted the 2013 Vermonter of the Year by The Burlington Free Press. I am honored to count Lois among my closest friends. Marcelle and I are constantly inspired by her deep and sustained commitment to Vermont and to those of us who call it home. As I have worked in public service, I have often looked for guidance in the breadth and depth of Lois McClure's philanthropic work. Year after year, Lois has found just the right points of leverage for her work to make Vermont a better place. Lois McClure continues to build on a legacy of support for the arts, cultural and historic preservation, and environmental conservation, and yet her most meaningful work may be the help that she has provided Vermonters confronting serious medical problems. Whether or not they recognize it, many, many Vermonters have Lois in their corner as they fight back against cancer and other serious illness. The Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, the Visiting Nurses Association, the American Cancer Society of Vermont, Fletcher Allen Health Care, and many other Vermont institutions are able to better serve Vermonters today because of Lois's commitment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about this exceptional Vermonter who has dedicated her life to improving her community and the lives of those around her.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on December 5, the world lost one of the greatest leaders of our era, and of any era, when Nelson Mandela died at the age of 95. His capacity for forgiveness was rivaled only by his courage. His actions serve as an example for the entire world. Having led South Africa out of its darkest period of history, Mandela focused on achieving national reconciliation to transition his government from minority rule and apartheid, to a multicultural democracy. He was successful in this endeavor because he believed in the importance of bringing people together, breaking down the barriers that defined, and imprisoned, many South Africans. For Nelson Mandela, the opportunity to lead meant the possibility of painting South African society on a blank canvas. It meant the possibility of creating a unified and free South Africa, rather than perpetuating a fractured mosaic defined by inequality. We are fortunate to have leaders among us who share many of Nelson Mandela's qualities of leadership and a focus on human rights. Having served for nearly four decades in the Senate, I have had the privilege to serve with some of them. Dick Clark, a Senator from Iowa who was in the Senate when I was first elected, is one such individual, and his story is connected to Nelson Mandela's legacy. I not only served with Senator Clark but I travelled with him to Vermont and elsewhere. His sense of commitment and his conscience set a Senate standard that is rarely matched. He was a fierce opponent of apartheid, and a recent POLITICO article recalls Dick Clark's efforts to raise awareness in Congress on the importance of the issue, and to push legislation that would distance the United States from the South African government's activities in the region. His efforts eventually contributed to his electoral loss at the end of his term, but that did not keep him from pursing his goals. I am pleased that during this important period of reflection, Dick Clark's contributions continue to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent POLITICO article, A Nelson Mandela backstory: Iowa's Dick Clark, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent data breach at Target involving the debit and credit card data of as many as 40 million customers during the Christmas holidays is a reminder that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cybersecurity remains one of the most challenging and important issues facing our Nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. I thank Senators Franken, Schumer and Blumenthal for cosponsoring this important privacy legislation. When I first introduced this bill 9 years ago, I had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill numerous times this legislation has languished on the Senate calendar. In the meantime, the dangers to Americans' privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 662 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. According to Verizon's 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report, there were more than 600 publicly disclosed data breaches last year. These data security breaches have become all too common and these cyberthreats have placed Americans' privacy rights at great risk. In 2011, the Obama administration released several proposals to enhance cybersecurity, including a data breach proposal that adopted the carefully balanced framework of our legislation. I am happy that many of the sound privacy principles in this bill have been embraced by the administration. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. The bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification and require notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised. This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. The bill also includes the Obama administration's proposal to update the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offenses. I have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. I have also consulted with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and with the Federal Trade Commission. This is a comprehensive bill that not only addresses the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Enacting this comprehensive data privacy legislation remains one of my legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Protecting privacy rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent data breach at Target involving the debit and credit card data of as many as 40 million customers during the Christmas holidays is a reminder that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cybersecurity remains one of the most challenging and important issues facing our Nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. I thank Senators Franken, Schumer and Blumenthal for cosponsoring this important privacy legislation. When I first introduced this bill 9 years ago, I had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill numerous times this legislation has languished on the Senate calendar. In the meantime, the dangers to Americans' privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 662 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. According to Verizon's 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report, there were more than 600 publicly disclosed data breaches last year. These data security breaches have become all too common and these cyberthreats have placed Americans' privacy rights at great risk. In 2011, the Obama administration released several proposals to enhance cybersecurity, including a data breach proposal that adopted the carefully balanced framework of our legislation. I am happy that many of the sound privacy principles in this bill have been embraced by the administration. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. The bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification and require notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised. This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. The bill also includes the Obama administration's proposal to update the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offenses. I have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. I have also consulted with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and with the Federal Trade Commission. This is a comprehensive bill that not only addresses the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Enacting this comprehensive data privacy legislation remains one of my legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Protecting privacy rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. While the distinguished Senator from Nebraska is still on the floor, I found much to agree with in her comments. I hope that after we introduce the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act she may wish to become a cosponsor. This would better protect Americans from the growing threat of data breaches and identity theft. Last year, according to Verizon's report, there were more than 600 publicly disclosed data breaches all over the country. The recent breach of Target involved debit and credit card data of as many as 14 million customers. That is a reminder that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cyber security remains one of the most challenging and important issues facing our Nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threat of data breaches and identity theft. I thank Senators Franken, Schumer, and Blumenthal for cosponsoring it. When I first introduced this bill 9 years ago, I thought we very urgently needed privacy reforms for the American people. At that time, the threat to the American people was nowhere near as extensive as it is today. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported this bill in the past--Republicans and Democrats have joined together numerous times-- but it has languished on the Senate calendar. I wish to point out some of the dangers to Americans' privacy and our national security posed by data breaches that have not gone away. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 662 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. In Verizon's ``2013 Data Breach Investigations Report,'' there were more than 600 publicly disclosed data breaches. These are just the ones that are publicly disclosed. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. The bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification and require notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised. It provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. The requirement for companies to publicly disclose a breach will also encourage them to implement far better security than many have today. Protecting privacy rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope all Senators will join with this. Retirement of Barry Meyer

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on a personal matter. It is about a dear friend of mine, Barry Meyer. I would like to recognize his remarkable career. He is retiring this month from Warner Brothers after 42 years with the company. We know that Warner Brothers is one of America's most legendary entertainment companies. It is a household name for families around the Nation. I think of the times I have walked through the company's grounds with Barry Meyer. We would talk about his coming there as a young lawyer and about the history of the company that he eventually came to lead. He showed an impressive sense of history, and it is gratifying to see somebody who takes such pride in his work. We have all heard of Warner Brothers, but far fewer Americans have heard about the man behind the magic for the past 14 years. It is a testament to his leadership as chairman and CEO that he allowed the company and its properties to shine in the spotlight. Despite his quiet style, Barry stood at the forefront of pop culture during his tenure at Warner Brothers. Think of movies and television shows such as ``Harry Potter,'' ``The Big Bang Theory,'' ``The Blind Side,'' and ``The Dark Knight'' trilogy. They made people laugh, cry, or simply marvel at the memorable productions that have sprung from his tenure at this company. I would also note as a lifelong Batman fan that I have had the opportunity to see two of Barry's productions from the inside while they were filming. I can speak firsthand to the culture he fostered at Warner Brothers that brought people together and allowed creativity to flourish. Barry first joined Warner Brothers in 1971--before I was in the Senate, I might add--as director of business affairs for the television division. In 1999 he became chairman and CEO. His steady leadership of the company came at a time when the entertainment industry was beginning to face new challenges. The industry was facing the rise of the Internet as well as the tremendous challenge of online piracy. Barry pushed the company to innovate, but he also became an important voice about the impact online piracy has on our economy and on industries that are a vibrant part of American life. His counsel has been invaluable to me as Congress has looked for solutions to address this issue. He has always been available to give advice--solid advice based on knowledge, not on emotion. Warner Brothers has been one of the world's most successful entertainment companies under Barry's tenure, but he has also focused on humanitarian and charitable pursuits. He is a member of the board of directors for Human Rights Watch and the advisory board of the National Museum of American History here at the Smithsonian. He was also recognized in 2006 with the American Jewish Committee's Dorothy and Sherrill C. Corwin Human Relations Award for his humanitarian efforts. I know that when he was given that award, his request was that the speakers not praise him but instead praise things of importance to all Americans. This is typical of Barry Meyer as a person. Among these efforts was joining with his wife Wendy to establish scholarships at the University of Southern California to support students who have been in foster care. Barry and Wendy have wonderful children and grandchildren. They have a loving family with them. Visitors to their home find that it is a welcoming place that feels lived in, a place where children and grandchildren can feel comfortable and play. Barry and Wendy are fortunate to have that family. What they have done is they have worked to help those who have not necessarily had that advantage. My wife Marcelle and I have gotten to know Barry and Wendy. They have been together with us in Vermont, here in Washington, and out in California. Some people who have the position he does might make sure everybody knows that they are important--not so with either one of them. They are down-to-earth and quiet. When we get together, we pick up the conversation we had months before. They make you feel as if you are a member of the family. So this remarkable couple is going to be working in other endeavors. There have been some great articles about Barry, as he looks back on his career and the work he has done to make sure the company remains in good hands with his successor. As he begins this next chapter of his life, I wish Barry all the best. I congratulate him on a wonderful and distinguished career. Warner Brothers and the entertainment industry are not going to be quite the same without him, but he leaves behind a legacy, an example for the next generation to follow. I know his successor, and I wish Kevin Tsujihara the very best in following him. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a December 29, 2013, article from The Wrap, which my daughter Alicia showed me.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know I look forward to the next time Marcelle and I have an opportunity to be with Barry and Wendy, and while he may be retired, neither one of them is going to be sitting back doing nothing. I know them too well for that. With that, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Reid, who I know worked extraordinarily hard to get the votes for this. I read something someone wrote in the press, saying they are afraid that Senator Reid didn't talk about these issues enough yesterday on the floor. I would point out that you can either talk or do. I thought he spoke quite well, but he basically spent the time lining up the votes and won. A lot of people talk about what they want to do. Senator Reid usually gets it accomplished. As one who has served here longer than anybody else in this body, I would rather see people get things done, and he did. Speaking of things to get done in this new year, the farm bill remains as one of the Nation's top legislative priorities. Yet it has languished in Congress's in-box. As the Senate begins this new session, it is a relief--at last--to be able to say that there are new glimmers of hope that Congress is nearing the point of being able to complete work on a farm bill. We passed this farm bill twice in the Senate. I compliment the chair of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow. She brought together Democrats and Republicans, many of us who served at one time or another as either chair or ranking member or both on that committee, and said: Why don't we just do it the old-fashioned way? Instead of just talking about it, why don't we actually sit down, write it, and bring something to the floor that can pass? We did, and it passed twice. While over in the House, the bill languished for quite some time before they decided to move forward. Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas from the House worked throughout the holiday break. My own staff, Adrienne Wojciechowski and Rebekah Weber, have worked very hard with them to produce a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that addresses the needs of farmers, families, communities, and taxpayers. A farm bill is a dynamic element of our agriculture economy, and of our overall national economy. A farm bill touches every family, in ways large and small. It has now been more than 460 days since the last farm bill expired. That is well over a year ago. Since then, American farmers have struggled to make long-term planting decisions, and more than 20 programs--such as those affecting organic certification cost-sharing, beginning farmers, relief from livestock disasters, renewable energy, and rural small businesses--all have been stranded without funding. Rural small businesses are a major part of my State and the Presiding Officer's State. But every State has some rural area that is extremely important. This farm bill limbo is part of a string of artificial made-by- Congress dilemmas. Farm bill limbo hurts not only farmers, but their communities, and our economy. It hampers efforts to help those who are struggling the most in our communities, with food security for their families. It holds us back from making greater gains toward energy security. Last month, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives proposed a short farm bill extension. Short extensions are nothing new here on Capitol Hill. Most of us know them by the term ``kicking the can down the road.'' They patch things over from one crisis to the next. But just as a temporary extension to fund government offers neither certainty nor meaningful change, a short extension of the farm bill would not provide farmers the certainty they need to plan, or funding for stranded programs. Farming is a business, and saddling farmers with this needless uncertainty makes their difficult work even more difficult. Even worse, the proposed House extension would prolong direct payment subsidies for another year, senselessly costing taxpayers untold millions of dollars. At this point, the only acceptable path forward is to deliver a full, five-year, comprehensive farm bill by the end of January. Moving forward on the farm bill not only will avoid the so-called ``dairy cliff,'' but it also will help families put food on the table, improve conservation efforts, support regional farming, and put an end to wasteful subsidies. This farm bill marks the seventh time that I have served as a member of a Farm Bill Conference Committee. I know how difficult it is to bring complex, five-year bills to the floor and ultimately to final passage after a conference. I don't in any way diminish the difficulty in that. I know; I have been there, and I have done that. While there have been many significant changes in agricultural policy since the 1981 farm bill, which I had the privilege to write, one thing has remained the same: No farm bill is easy, and no farm bill is perfect. But to finalize a farm bill, the Senate and House must work together to reach bipartisan agreement. It means, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, forget the symbolism and start dealing with the substance. Stop rhetoric and go to reality. The conference committee is making steady progress, and Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas deserve credit, and our appreciation, for working closely together to bridge the wide differences between our two bills. The cuts it includes will not go unnoticed, as we have already seen spending reductions from the sequester, followed by the end of the Recovery Act nutrition benefits. We can talk here on the floor. We are all going to collect our paycheck every month. But we sometimes forget these cuts and policy changes affect real people in real ways. So we have to continue to do the best we can. Speaking as a Vermonter, I would note that every farm bill is important to Vermont, just as every farm bill is important to every State represented in this body. Farm bills make real differences in our quality of life, and the fact that Congress every 5 years or so would renew and pass a farm bill was once something Americans could take for granted. This is the first time we have not been able to do so. The delays have been unfortunate, and they have been needless. But I am increasingly hopeful that this recent dark chapter is coming to a close. Farmers and families around the Nation are looking to us to pass forward-looking, fiscally responsible, and regionally sensitive food and farm policy--and the two have to be together, both the food and the farm policy. Farmers have to be able to plan, but families have to know, when their children go to school, they are going to be fed. Every teacher will tell you that a hungry child doesn't learn. If children aren't learning, what are we doing for the next generation? That is our responsibility. Now is the time, without further delay, to enact a farm bill that will strengthen the Nation and support the economy. I know we are up to this challenge. We have done it twice already in this body, forging a bipartisan coalition. I am hoping the other body, notwithstanding some of the Republicans who tried to block it, will come forward and speak, not just for a small part of one political party, but speak for all Americans. Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that all the time during the recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1845.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I may take one moment while the distinguished leader is here. I wish to commend Senator Reid for his cooperation. He has worked very hard to bring this together. We had a very complex and very extensive immigration bill, with 300 amendments filed in the Judiciary Committee. After it went through the committee, Senator Reid worked hard to get time on the floor and then we passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, addressing the majority leader through the Chair, I would note that even Grover Norquist, who is sort of the guru of many of the Republicans, testified before the Judiciary Committee that passing this bill and putting it into law would add nearly $1 trillion or more to the economy. All sorts of business leaders came in and said this would add to our economy. It is one of those rare cases where the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came together because it would dramatically improve the economy, dramatically improve the wages of people, and it would lower the deficit. It is a no- brainer. That is why we came together in the Senate. With the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Nevada and others, Republicans and Democrats, we came together and we passed it. They should take it up. If they want to make some changes, do so. I am ready to go to conference on it at a moment's notice so we can get this bill passed and on the President's desk. We have shown we could do it before. We did it with the Violence Against Women Act, which they at first refused to take up in the House. Even the White House was backing off some of the parts we added to it here because they were afraid it might not go through. But Senator Crapo and I stuck together. A bipartisan group in the House stuck together, and they passed it in the House. We passed it, and it went into law. We added sexual trafficking. It is a good bill. We can do it, if people want to. But if we take the position that we cannot do anything, that we just want to be naysayers and nihilistic about government, then, of course, we don't do anything. But here is a way to get the economy going. Here is a way to improve our Nation. Frankly, I just wanted to stand and compliment the distinguished majority leader for speaking of what we can do, and I hope we do.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, while the days are limited before the end of 2013, the Farm Bill Conference Committee presses on, working together in a bipartisan fashion to resolve differences and to take the steps necessary to enact a comprehensive and balanced farm bill. Under the leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas, it now appears we are on target to complete our work on this bill early in the New Year. Nonetheless, it has now been more than 440 days since the farm bill first expired. Farms are businesses, and farmers in Vermont and across the country are desperate to have a new farm bill enacted to give them the much-needed certainty for their planting and other farm decisions. Since the 2008 farm bill expired last year, we have seen parts of the country ravaged by blizzards that wiped out cattle herds while commodity prices slump. More than 20 programs, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Grant Program, livestock disaster, renewable energy programs, and assistance for rural small business owners have been stranded without updated charters, and the USDA has had to press the pause button since these programs are stuck with no authorized funding. Those who participate in these programs are left hanging. That is as unwise as it is unfair. Last week the House of Representatives quickly took up and passed a short-term extension of the farm bill with very little debate and has asked the Senate to do the same. I have heard a lot of concern here in the Senate that this short, 1-month extension could allow direct payment subsidies to continue for another full year. We have already agreed on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to get rid of these unnecessary and expensive direct payment subsidies to agribusiness, so we should not fall into this trap of extending them for a full year. That would be unacceptable, and, according to Secretary Vilsack, unnecessary. Secretary Vilsack has indicated that if Congress completes the farm bill in early January, which can be done based on progress we have already made, we will not see the negative effects of the expiration of the dairy title, and implementation of the law should go smoothly. This is a reassuring, positive signal from the Secretary that consumers and our dairy farmers will not see the spikes in the cost of milk that we had all feared last New Year's Eve. Of course, if the House of Representatives really wanted to get a farm bill done sooner, they would have kept the House in session this week instead of recessing for the year. Instead, they pushed forward a counterproductive short-term extension to make it seem that they are doing something for farmers. This comes after the House leadership spent much of the past 2 years dragging their feet on farm policy and reforms, while the Senate has now passed two overwhelmingly bipartisan and reform-oriented farm bills. While we had first hoped to complete this work in 2012, the farm bill was pushed back to 2013, and it will soon become the 2014 farm bill. Over the last 2 years, the need for this comprehensive legislation has only grown. We have all heard stories from our home States about the real impacts caused by the failure of Congress to pass a new farm bill and the continued uncertainty for farmers and those who rely on USDA's nutrition programs. I regret that far too many hungry and food insecure families across America have to wonder whether this most basic assistance will still be in place to offer support in the new year. I have always been a strong proponent of nutrition assistance programs and the doors they open and will continue to oppose drastic and draconian cuts and damaging changes to these programs. I look forward to returning in January and sitting down with the Conference Committee to work through the final details of this bill. We cannot delay any longer, and I am pleased that Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas have come together in a bipartisan way to move the farm bill forward. As a past chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and a seven-time farm bill conferee, I know the challenges they have faced. I look forward to helping with the final steps in conferencing this legislation--a bill that touches every American. Its passage will strengthen the Nation and grow our economy. The Farm Bill has long stood as a model of bipartisan consensus. I look forward to the Senate and House reaching a final bipartisan agreement that will move the bill forward to the President's desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Republicans are once again--for the fifth year in a row--rejecting the longstanding Senate practice of scheduling confirmation votes on consensus nominees before the end of the session. Rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to confirm consensus nominees to fill judgeships as we wind down for the year, Senate Republicans have deliberately refused to agree to vote on consensus nominees who could and should be confirmed without delay. The result is that we will spend a significant portion of the next year on the Senate floor doing work that should have been completed this year. And now the Republican abuse of Senate rules has further escalated--Republicans have, for the first time ever, refused to allow any currently pending judicial nominees to be held over so that they could be ready for immediate action next year. For purely political reasons, Senate Republicans are forcing us to duplicate work next year that we have already completed in 2013. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and valuable resources that could be spent addressing the difficult issues facing our Nation. As it stands, nine judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar--all reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously or with significant bipartisan support--are being returned to the President. Another 15 judicial nominees who could have been reported to the full Senate and confirmed by the end of this year had Senate Republicans not blocked the Judiciary Committee's ability to meet to report these nominees to the full Senate are being returned to the President. Another 31 judicial nominees pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee will also be returned to the President. Each of these nominations represents a significant amount of work by the nominees themselves, the White House, the Department of Justice, and Senate staff on both sides of the aisle. The only judicial nomination not being returned to the President is Robert Wilkins' nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit because the procedural posture of his nomination enables the Senate to hold his nomination over until next year. I am pleased that Judge Wilkins' nomination will not be returned, which allows for quick action next year, but there is no good reason to return any of the other 55 judicial nominations pending in the Senate. Senate Republicans' persistent obstruction over the last 5 years has led to record-high vacancies in Federal courts throughout the country. At the end of 2009, Senate Republicans 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 eight. This resulted in the lowest 1-year confirmation total in at least 35 years. At the end of 2010 and again in 2011, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar. It then took nearly half the following years for the Senate to confirm these nominees. Last year they blocked 11 judicial nominees from votes and refused to expedite consideration of others who had already had hearings. And this year, they have escalated their obstruction and delay of judicial nominations by indiscriminately requiring that nominees be sent back to the President at the end of this first session of the 113th Congress, the effect of which is to needlessly cause delay in the Senate's ability to process these nominations and prevent more judges from getting to work for the American people. Senate Republicans will argue that the change in Senate precedent a few weeks ago on nominations is the cause of their refusal to cooperate, but history shows that this is simply not true. The truth is, from the first day President Obama took office, Senate Republicans pursued a path of delay and obstruction on judicial nominees that departed dramatically from Senate tradition. That it took 5 years into this Presidency for the rules to change has been the result of certain Senators, including me, who have been reluctant to change prior Senate practice. But once the government stops functioning, the right course of action is to do what needs to be done so that the American people have a government that works to make their lives better. The American people do not want to hear about tit-for-tat politics or their representatives playing the blame game. They are tired of Congress wasting time and resources when there is so much to be done. They want their representatives to work, vote, and fulfill their constitutional obligations. They want their representatives to fulfill their duty of advice and consent so that our courts have the necessary judges to provide speedy, quality justice. The reality, unfortunately, falls short of the American peoples' expectation. During 2013, the same obstruction that has plagued the Senate during the first term of the Obama administration continued to delay the rate of confirmations to appointments on the Federal bench. The 113th Congress began with a high level of vacancies on the Federal Judiciary. As of January 2013, there were 77 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, and, of these, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts determined 27 of them to be ``judicial emergencies.'' Over the course of 2013, the number of vacancies has hovered around 90. Right now, at the end of the fifth year of the Obama administration, there are a total of 88 judicial vacancies, 36 of which are judicial emergency vacancies. In stark contrast, at the end of the fifth year of the Bush administration, there were less than 50 judicial vacancies, and only 16 of those were judicial emergency vacancies. As the year closes, judicial vacancies remain at crisis levels. However, despite these high levels, Republican obstructionism continues to impose severe delays on the confirmations process, particularly in those States that faced significant obstruction from Republican home State Senators, such as Arizona and Texas. A year after the American people voted to reelect President Obama, Senate Republicans decided to escalate their obstruction to an unimaginable level this year, preventing the President from filling any of the three vacancies on what is often considered the second most important court in the Nation--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Senate Republicans chose to filibuster all three nominees to that court without even considering their qualifications. This type of wholesale obstruction was simply unacceptable. Republicans attempted to justify their opposition to filling any of the three vacancies on the DC Circuit by arguing that the court's caseload did not warrant the appointments. We all knew that this was a transparent attempt to prevent a Democratic President from appointing judges to this court. In 2003, the Senate unanimously confirmed John Roberts by voice vote to be the ninth judge on the DC Circuit--at a time when its caseload was lower than it is today. In fact, his confirmation marked the lowest caseload level per judge on the DC Circuit in 20 years. Not a single Senate Republican raised any concerns about whether the caseload warranted his confirmation, and during the Bush administration, they voted to confirm four judges to the DC Circuit, providing the court with 11 active judges. In light of this double standard, I finally agreed that past precedent had to be revisited because a faction of the minority party should not be permitted to nullify an election by blocking the President's nominees without regard to their qualifications. I am pleased to say that in the last few weeks, after taking action, we were finally able to confirm Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard--two highly qualified attorneys--to the 9th and 10th seats on the DC Circuit. With the confirmation of these two women, there will now be five women and five men actively serving as judges on the DC Circuit-- this is a historic first for any Federal appellate court. I am, however, disappointed that Senate Republicans refused to allow us to take a vote on Judge Robert Wilkins, another well qualified nominee whose confirmation would enable the DC Circuit to function at full strength, with 11 judges. I am hopeful that we will have a vote on his nomination early next year. Other historic firsts for women serving on our Federal judiciary also occurred this year. In April, Jane Kelly became the first woman from Iowa to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, and, in May, Shelly Dick was confirmed as the first woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Late last week, after the majority leader was forced to file cloture over Republican opposition to moving forward on district court nominees, three more nominees were confirmed to serve as the first women on their respective courts: Elizabeth Wolford, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of New York; Landya McCafferty, to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Hampshire; and Susan Watters to be U.S. district judge for the District of Montana. After an extraordinarily long delay of nearly 22 months since his nomination, we were also finally able to confirm Brian Davis to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. I am disappointed that it required overcoming a Republican filibuster on his nomination. He is a superb nominee. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated him to be ``well qualified'' to serve on the Federal bench. For the past 20 years he has served as a State court judge, where he has presided over 600 cases in both civil and criminal matters that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to becoming a State court judge, he served for a total of 9 years as a state prosecutor, including 3 years as chief assistant State attorney. Judge Davis also has experience in private practice, where he was a partner at the law firm of Terrell Hogan. He will make a fine Federal judge. I am pleased that despite continued Republican attempts to block or delay confirmation of judicial nominees, we were able to continue to move forward on these and other nominees this year. I have heard, however, some suggestion that Republicans will now seek to delay judicial nominations by exploiting a Senate tradition known as the ``blue slip.'' The Constitution requires that judicial appointments be made ``with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' For nearly 100 years, chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sought to give meaning to this constitutional edict by a blue slip policy to ensure that Senators are given an opportunity to advise the President about potential judicial nominees before they are nominated to fill lifetime positions in their home State. A blue slip is a piece of paper sent by the chairman to home State Senators asking that it be signed and returned with an indication of whether they approve of or oppose the judicial nomination made by the President. Over the years, other chairmen have taken a more flexible view of the blue slips, but during my chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have protected the rights of Senators--whether Republican or Democrat--to be meaningfully consulted. Honoring the blue slip policy allows judicial nominations to move forward in committee only after receiving positive blue slips from home State Senators. Another improvement I made when I first became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001 was to make home State Senators more accountable for their blue slip decisions by making the process transparent for the first time. I will continue to honor the blue slip policy as it currently stands, but I hope that Republicans will not abuse this tradition and force me to reconsider. As we approach the new year, I hope that reasonable Republicans will join us in restoring the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the compromise Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act is an important authorization bill that I intend to support. This will be the second legislative matter considered by the Senate this week that reflects the kind of compromise too often missing from our deliberations in Congress. It does not meet the needs of every Senator, but it marks a step in the right direction and will allow the Department of Defense to move forward key programs in the coming year. I understand the frustration of some Senators who were keen to offer amendments to this authorization bill. In fact, two measures I introduced during the Senate's consideration were not included in the compromise. These provisions would have extended protections for human rights by aiding international efforts to prosecute war criminals and compensating innocent civilians who fall victim to combat operations. Both provisions have significant support, and I remain committed to continuing to work to see them enacted in the new year. But despite the best efforts of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, the amendment process in the Senate was derailed by irrelevant proposals, which prevented provisions like these from receiving consideration. Nonetheless, I will support this compromise.. The bill before the Senate authorizes the activities of the Department of Defense, the single largest U.S. Government entity. As a result, manufacturers and service providers across the United States will keep Americans employed making and doing things for the Department. It means that the U.S. Armed Forces can take the steps needed to address threats to our security. Most importantly, it means the members of the Armed Forces and their families can count on having the equipment and support they need while selflessly serving to keep us safe. The Defense authorization bill before us also contains important changes that will help the administration transfer more individuals out of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It includes a provision that relaxes the current onerous certification requirements that must be satisfied before transferring detainees to third countries. These requirements have proven to be unnecessary and counterproductive. Regrettably, the compromise bill retains two limitations that were included in the House-passed version of the authorization. The legislation extends the current prohibition on constructing facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees and also extends the ban on transferring detainees to the United States for detention or trial. I strongly believe that the executive branch must have all options available in handling terrorism cases, particularly the ability to prosecute terrorists in Federal criminal courts. That is why I voted against an amendment by Senator Ayotte during the Senate floor debate in November that included these same restrictions. Although I would have preferred the more favorable detention-related provisions contained in the underlying Senate bill, this compromise represents an improvement over existing law. Reforms to the military justice system in this compromise also accomplish an improvement of the status quo. This bill includes roughly two dozen changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense policy that enhance victims' rights and protections and amend the investigative and prosecutorial process. Among the measures included in the bill is the removal of a commander's ability to overturn jury convictions, and a secondary review of any decision made not to prosecute, whether made by the convening authority or the staff judge advocate. Additionally, the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes is eliminated, and those accused of certain sex- related offenses are required to receive dishonorable discharges or dismissals if convicted. These important accountability measures will be supported by the removal of the ``good soldier'' defense for the accused, and victims will further be protected by changes that prevent them from being forced to testify at article 32 proceedings and at trial. Though more can be done, these and other provisions adopted represent a significant improvement and merit the Senate's support. There are many other provisions in this bill that are worthy of highlighting, but as cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I am most pleased that this bill does not compromise on supporting the National Guard. As an essential part of U.S. security at home and abroad, the National Guard is an integral part of the Armed Forces today and will remain so in the future. Among the many provisions that demonstrate the strong commitment to the National Guard felt by Members of Congress in both Chambers, two are most important. First, the authorization effectively ends the process of ``off-ramping,'' wherein a National Guard unit scheduled to deploy is replaced at the last minute by an Active unit, preserving both certainty and operational readiness for our National Guard personnel and families. Second, it requires congressional budget justification documents to specifically enumerate funding levels for embedded mental health providers in National Guard and Reserve units. For too many years, men and women in the Guard and Reserves have come home from war to inadequate mental health resources. The Congress took the important step of embedding mental health providers in units, but resources disproportionally moved towards the large, Active military bases, while our hometown heroes at small drill centers around the country went without. With specific enumeration, we can take a better look at resource allocation and we in the Congress can make sure members of the Guard and Reserve get similar access to their Active counterparts. The authorization before the Senate is the result of compromise. The Senate will close this session of Congress on the heels of two bipartisan votes that passed a 2-year budget and this important authorization bill. I hope that this bodes well for further cooperation and compromise in the new year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the first session of the 113th Congress comes to a close, it is appropriate to reflect on some of the accomplishments of the year, while acknowledging that so much more could have been done had Republicans in both the Senate and the House cooperated. We have passed some commonsense, good-government legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud of the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee this year. While there remains much work to be done, these accomplishments illustrate what we as a Congress are capable of when we set aside partisan politics and put the good of the American people first. My first legislative priority at the beginning of this Congress was to complete our work to improve and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. Vermont has been a national leader in addressing domestic and sexual violence. In Vermont, VAWA funding has helped the National Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence provide services for more than 7,000 adults and nearly 1,400 children in 2011 alone. The Burlington-based Women Helping Battered Women and Middlebury-based WomenSafe have supported thousands of children and adults by offering emergency shelter, transitional housing, counseling, and legal assistance. These dedicated service providers help victims recover from unspeakable trauma and abuse, but the need for VAWA remains. Three women are killed every day by abusive husbands or boyfriends. In Vermont, 51 percent of all homicides are related to domestic violence. After months of work, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the institution to reauthorize VAWA with a strong bipartisan vote. This bill, which I drafted with Senator Mike Crapo, a conservative Republican from Idaho, proved that when we put people before politics there is much we can accomplish. Our bill was written with the input of survivors and the advocates who work with them every day, law enforcement personnel, judges, and State and local leaders. It was drafted to meet the real needs of real victims. Although it faced early resistance, none of the commonsense changes it included should have been controversial. Eventually, the House listened to the experts in the field and followed the Senate's example and passed this inclusive, lifesaving legislation. At a time when we face gridlock and stonewalling on even the most compelling issues, I was heartened to see that we could find a way to cut through all of that to help victims of violence. I am proud of this new law. As a result of its passage, for the first time, VAWA guarantees that all victims can receive needed services, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Leahy- Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act strengthens protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures that colleges and universities will do more to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. Our reauthorization also took important new steps to combat the appalling epidemic of domestic violence on tribal lands and to ensure that no perpetrators of this terrible crime are above the law. I was happy to work with Representative Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, to preserve this provision in our bill. I thank him for his leadership. To help support the important work of Vermont's domestic and sexual violence advocates, I included all-State minimum funding allocations in the VAWA reauthorization, and amended the definition of rural State to ensure that Vermont continues to be eligible for grants under the Rural Grant Program, despite the increased population in Chittenden County. So far in 2013, Vermont has received $4.5 million in VAWA grants for victim services and violence prevention. The bill that the President signed also included the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, TVPRA, which strengthens effective programs to help us take on the scourge of human trafficking, both here at home and around the world. It is unacceptable that 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the evils of sex trafficking and labor trafficking, forms of modern-day slavery, still exist. It has been needlessly difficult, but I am glad that the Senate adopted my amendment to add the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to our Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act to address the horrors of human trafficking. My work across party lines did not end with passage of VAWA and TVPRA. It continued on a number of other smaller, yet nonetheless important, pieces of legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on State Department and Foreign Operations, I worked with Senators Shaheen and McCain to obtain a continuation of the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa, SIV, Program, H.R. 3233. Congress created the program in 2008 to afford some of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who served alongside U.S. troops the opportunity to seek safety and a new beginning in the United States. It was set to expire at the end of October despite the fact that after 5 years fewer than 6,000 of the 25,000 available visas had been distributed to those Iraqis who risked their lives to be our translators and our guides. They were a critical resource to our troops, helping them navigate complex cultural, political, and geographic terrain. Letting the program expire would have meant leaving many well-deserving Iraqi allies in danger and undermining American credibility for decades to come. Although our initial efforts this fall to include the extension in the continuing resolution were blocked, we were able to work together to honor our commitment and renew this critical program by passing bipartisan legislation at the final hour. Among the many lessons of the Vietnam War is that we must not abandon those who risked their lives to help us. Over the summer, I also worked with Representatives Kline and Miller on the House Education and Workforce Committee, and with Ranking Member Grassley to pass the Missing Children's Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2013, H.R. 3092. This important measure ensures that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, can continue its critical and lifesaving work on behalf of some of the most vulnerable children in our communities. Congress has now renewed its obligation to support vital efforts to locate missing children and to protect all children from being victimized by predators. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was first launched nearly three decades ago. In that time, NCMEC has helped law enforcement in the recovery of more than 188,000 missing children through the use of a 24-hour hotline, a national child pornography tipline, and a cyber tipline, as well as the circulation of millions of photographs used to help track and identify missing children. The bill passed by Congress in September extends the program another five years. The U.S. Parole Commission is an important public safety entity responsible for granting or denying parole for Federal and District of Columbia prisoners sentenced before parole was abolished. It also has jurisdiction over more recent DC offenders who are on supervised release from prison. The Commission's charter was set to expire in October, and what should have been a straightforward and noncontroversial extension, turned into a drawn-out struggle to override the objections of a single Republican Senator. Those objections meant that passage was only secured on the eve of the Commission's expiration, unnecessarily placing public safety at risk. The objection was particularly troubling given that Congress has consistently recognized the importance of the Commission, reauthorizing it on six prior occasions. Beginning in August, I worked closely with members of the House Judiciary Committee to find bipartisan, bicameral agreement. They understood the urgency and consequences of inaction and passed the U.S. Parole Commission Extension Act of 2013 in September, H.R. 3190. Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency was not felt in the Senate and opposition delayed passage until the final deadline. Although reason ultimately prevailed, unnecessary partisan opposition cost us time and threatened public safety. It is not the way to legislate. I also worked to clear a straightforward extension of the Supreme Court Police's authority to protect Justices, their staff, and official guests when they are away from Supreme Court grounds, H.R. 2922. I worked with my counterparts in the House for months to move this extension. Last month, the House voted by an overwhelming majority of 399 to 3 to pass this bipartisan bill, which extends this important authority through 2019. Congress has provided this authority since the 1980s to ensure the continued safety of our Supreme Court Justices and their employees. Threats to the safety of Supreme Court Justices are a threat to our democracy. In light of recent attacks on Justices off the grounds of the Supreme Court, it was all the more imperative that we pass this extension without delay. Most recently, I worked with Senators Moran and King to move forward the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act. This legislation, which will enable veterinarians to cross State lines to treat animals, particularly livestock, when the need arises, will dramatically improve the ability of veterinarians to do their jobs effectively. I have heard from many Vermonters about just how important this legislation is to them. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and in my role as chairman, I moved to discharge it from committee so that it could progress to the full Senate as quickly as possible. I am optimistic that it will pass the full Senate yet this year. Unfortunately, the passage and enactment of bipartisan legislation has become more the exception than the rule. If this unprecedented obstruction continues, we will end up passing 46 percent fewer laws than we did last year. That is 46 percent less progress made for the American people and the Nation. It is therefore not surprising that the American public holds the Congress in such low esteem. As the elected representatives of the American people, we bear a special responsibility to find ways to work together to find real solutions to our Nation's problems. Yet Congress is gripped by the paralysis of partisan politics. We are not the first Congress to face a divided government where Republicans control one House and Democrats the other. For example, during the 99th Congress, when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House, Congress passed 687 bills, which were enacted into law. It is disappointing how our progress pales in comparison. To match that level of productivity this Congress, we would have to pass over 600 bills next year. If we stay on track, we will have accomplished 81 percent less legislatively than the divided 99th Congress. To be clear, we have passed into law 19 percent of what the 99th Congress was able pass. That is not a shining record of accomplishment, and we can and should do better. It is my hope that both parties can set aside petty politics and get down to business for the American people. We do not agree on everything, but just as the Senate found common ground earlier this year on historic legislation to reform our broken immigration system, we must find a way to work together. The status quo is unacceptable and serves a small and extreme minority, not the common interests of a majority of Americans. Let's make the sacrifices and compromises necessary to push forward legislation that improves our economy and the lives of our constituents. Look no further for such an opportunity than the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, a bill a bipartisan group of Senators supported and that the House has failed to consider. This comprehensive bill contains measures that are important to many Vermonters and to the Nation. I added a provision that takes an important step toward restoring privacy rights to millions of people who live near the northern border by injecting some oversight into the decisionmaking process for operating Federal checkpoints and entering private land without a warrant far from the border. The bill contains significant measures to assist dairy farmers and other Vermont growers who have long relied on foreign workers and who will need them in the future. It contains a youth jobs program proposed by Senator Sanders to help young people gain employment. It contains a measure I proposed to make sure that no Canadian citizen traveling to Vermont to see a family member will be charged a fee for crossing our shared border. It contains an improvement to the visas used by nonprofit arts organizations like the Vermont Symphony Orchestra who invite talented foreign artists to perform in America. It contains measures to improve the lives and futures of refugees and asylum seekers who call Vermont home. It contains improvements to the H-2B Program to help small businesses. And it contains a measure to ensure that the job-creating EB-5 Program will be made permanent so that the State of Vermont can continue the great work that is being done with it to improve Vermont communities. This is a bill that will help Vermont families and businesses alike. The immigration reform legislation was cosponsored by four Senate Republicans and marked the first time in 7 years that the Senate was able to pass a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. There are some provisions in this bill I am not comfortable with, and there are provisions that I believe are noticeably absent. However, we came together as a Chamber to pass the best possible bill in the spirit of compromise and an effort to make lasting, positive change. Unfortunately that progress was stalled by the House Republican leadership, which has inexplicably vowed not to allow a vote on the Senate's bipartisan legislation. When the Speaker of the House says as he did last week that the Senate should pass more bills, I respond by challenging the leadership of the House of Representatives to take up bipartisan Senate-passed bills. The list of such bills that have been stalled by the obstructionism of House Republicans continues to grow. Senator Grassley and I worked hard as chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to draft a bipartisan bill to protect whistleblowers. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues. Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives. The legislation is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for antiretaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. Antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the House to act quickly to pass this important bipartisan legislation. Last month, the Senate passed the bipartisan Employment Non- Discrimination Act of 2013. That vote was 20 years in the making, and it was long overdue for Congress to extend these protections to all American workers. Years from now we will look back on this remedy as another historic milestone on our Nation's path toward more perfect union--a quest to realize more completely the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building that declares ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' All Americans deserve civil rights protections under our Constitution, which, in addition to the First Amendment, also ensure due process and equal protection. In previous legislative debates like the one before us today, Congress has protected and bolstered these rights by passing legislation to fill gaps in our Federal laws. This includes passing legislation to protect the practice of religion without discrimination, to prevent pay discrimination based on sex, and to serve openly in the military. By passing the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, the Senate took another significant step forward in removing discrimination from our laws and ensuring the equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. I urge the House to advance this remedy to injustice, which is already the law in 29 States. Similarly, I urge all Senators to allow passage of several common sense bills that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee and which enjoy strong bipartisan support but remain stalled due to the ideological objections of one or two Senators. For example, this is now the second time in two Congresses that the Judiciary Committee has reported the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act reauthorization with strong bipartisan support. In the 111th Congress, we held a hearing to examine a series of recommendations from the Government Accountability Office. I worked with Senator Grassley to incorporate many of those recommendations into the reauthorization. Yet our progress is needlessly stalled. Statistics show that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program has been saving lives for years. The Judiciary Committee most recently reported this legislation on a bipartisan vote in August, and it has since been approved by all Democratic Senators but remains stalled on the Republican side. Over 15 years ago, I worked with Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell to create this partnership to support State and local law enforcement jurisdictions in the purchase of lifesaving bulletproof vests. Since that time, over 13,000 jurisdictions have participated in this program and more than 1,084,081 vests have been distributed to law enforcement because of this partnership. Last year, Chief Michael Schirling of the Burlington Police Department in Vermont testified before the Judiciary Committee on the importance of the bulletproof vest partnership to law enforcement in Vermont and across the country. This year alone, 31 Vermont jurisdictions received a total over $73,000 to aid in the procurement of 271 bulletproof vests. That is 271 more Vermont law enforcement officers who will have a better chance of survival if they are shot in the line of duty. A few of my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that it is not the place or function of the Federal Government to spend Federal dollars on first responders in communities across the country. I urge them to put the safety of our most dedicated law enforcement officers and first responders over politics and ideology. Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to ensure our safety, and I believe it is our duty to support them. Based on data collected by the Department of Justice, in just 2012, bulletproof vests saved the lives of at least 33 law enforcement officers in 20 States, which is an increase of almost 14 percent over 2011 levels. The obstruction of this program's reauthorization should end. I hope those who are determined to continue their opposition will explain those objections to law enforcement officers across the country who put their lives at risk day in and day out. Congress has consistently pursued policies that support our State and local law enforcement officers and first responders. They are the frontlines of our national defense and indispensable to their communities. I urge all Senators to stand with America's law enforcement officers and support this legislation. In April, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported bipartisan legislation that I authored with Republican Senator Mike Lee to update ECPA and to bring this law fully into the digital age. Our bipartisan bill updates ECPA to require that the government obtain a search warrant--based upon probable cause--before obtaining the content of our emails and other electronic communications. The commonsense reforms in our bill carefully balance the interests and needs of consumers, the law enforcement community, and our Nation's thriving technology sector. The bill enjoys the support of a diverse coalition of more than 100 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, and technology organizations from across the political spectrum, including the American-Civil Liberties Union, the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology and Americans for Tax Reform. The bill is also the product of careful consultation with many Government and private sector stakeholders, including the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State, local law enforcement, and members of the technology and privacy communities. I remain disappointed that a single Republican Senator has objected to the unanimous consent request to pass this bipartisan bill, which overwhelmingly passed the Judiciary Committee. The privacy reforms in this bill are too important to delay. Like Senator Lee and me, all of the bill's supporters understand that protecting our digital privacy rights is not a democratic ideal, nor a Republican ideal, but an American ideal that all of us should embrace. I hope that all Senators will join me in supporting the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act and that the Senate will pass this bill without delay. Earlier this year, during consideration of legislation to prevent gun violence, the committee passed a bipartisan bill to help curb the straw purchasing of firearms and the interstate trafficking of firearms. Senator Collins, who shares my goal of giving law enforcement officials better tools to combat the straw purchasing and firearms trafficking that puts guns into the hands of drug cartels and other criminals, joined me in this effort. There is no doubt that straw purchasing and gun trafficking contributes significantly to the proliferation of guns in our communities across America and also across the southern border in Mexico. Under current law, there is no criminal statute specifically prohibiting straw purchasing. To convict criminals, prosecutors must rely on laws that prohibit an individual from making false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm. The penalties for such ``paperwork violations'' are often too low or do not serve as effective tools for law enforcement to put criminals behind bars. My bill would have changed that. This bill would have established a new Federal criminal offense for straw purchasing or conspiring to straw purchase a firearm from another person. My legislation would have also criminalized smuggling firearms out of the United States and also would strengthen existing law regarding the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. This legislation was strongly supported by law enforcement groups from across the country. I was greatly disappointed when this legislation did not receive the votes to pass the Senate, including from a Senator who had voted in favor of it in the Committee. Despite the best efforts by Senator Collins and me to find consensus with stakeholders and senators, too few Republicans were willing to join our important effort to meaningfully combat the serious public safety risks that straw purchasing and firearms trafficking pose. The committee also passed several bills to prevent gun violence and protect law enforcement officers, including Senator Boxer's bipartisan School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013, Senator Franken's bipartisan Justice and Mental Health Collaboration, and Senator Cardin's bipartisan National Blue Alert Act. Each of these bills was carefully crafted and enjoy bipartisan support. I urge the Senate to consider these important legislative proposals early in the next session. In early November, the Judiciary Committee reported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority the Leahy-Cornyn Justice for All Reauthorization Act which would reauthorize legislation first passed in 2004, when the House and Senate had Republican majorities, and it was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act strengthens and reauthorizes key programs to make the criminal justice system work better and more fairly. And it does so in a fiscally responsible way, reducing overall authorizations by nearly 25 percent. This is a strong example of what we can accomplish when we work together. Whether it is on the complex issues of protecting victims of domestic violence or in crafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we have demonstrated that we can work across the aisle to develop and pass practical legislative solutions. Just recently, in fact, we saw similar progress made by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan as they put aside their considerably different views to formulate a budget deal. Likewise, the House and Senate are in the process of conferencing a farm bill that we hope will be satisfactory to all parties. I hope that we can continue this trend of bipartisan cooperation as we consider legislation in the coming year, as there are tremendously important bills to be considered. For example, the Committee will continue its work on surveillance oversight and reform. For decades I have consistently fought to curtail the sweeping powers contained in the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act, while also bolstering privacy protections and strengthening oversight. With the recent revelations of sweeping government surveillance programs that threaten personal privacy and threaten the economic health of American technology companies, we are at a watershed moment in this important debate. That is why I joined with Congressman Sensenbrenner in October to introduce the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill to end the dragnet collection of Americans' phone records and recalibrate the government's surveillance authorities. All three branches of government have now called into serious question the effectiveness of these authorities. I will continue pressing the administration to rein in these powers and work with Democrats and Republicans to pass the meaningful reforms that are in the USA FREEDOM Act. Regarding the problem of patent trolls, we have significant work to do on several issues under the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. It is my hope that we will be able to work in a bipartisan way to address issues like abusive conduct by patent trolls who are targeting small businesses. I have heard from a growing number of main street businesses in Vermont and across the country that have received aggressive demand letters and been threatened with lawsuits when they are simply the innocent user of an allegedly infringing product. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Lee to tackle this problem, and I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's continued focus on this important issue next year. In the wake of this past June's Supreme Court decision striking down the coverage formula for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, I have been working with Congressman Sensenbrenner and other House Democrats to introduce a bipartisan and bicameral response to the Court's ruling and to restore this vital protection to the Voting Rights Act, and will continue to push for this legislation next year. Finally, I will remain focused on a number of important criminal justice issues, with sentencing reform legislation as a top priority. As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime. I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum sentences do more harm than good. I chaired a hearing on reevaluating the effectiveness of federal mandatory minimum sentences on September 18, 2013, and have been working with both Democrats and Republicans on sentencing reform proposals. In the coming year, I also plan to reintroduce my forensics reform bill, and will also take up the Second Chance Reauthorization Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this year along with Senator Portman. Since its enactment in 2008, the Second Chance Act has reduced prison costs and improved public safety by giving Federal, State, and local governments additional tools to help inmates more successfully reintegrate into their communities upon release and avoid re-offending. Offenders can escape the cycle of recidivism when they have the job training and skills necessary to successfully reenter society. So far in 2013, the Vermont Department of Corrections has received over $800,000 to implement a two-phase adult reentry demonstration program and a comprehensive statewide adult recidivism reeducation planning program. The reauthorization bill improves and consolidates the programs authorized by the Second Chance Act and reauthorizes the bill through 2018. The reauthorization bill improves and consolidates the programs authorized by the Second Chance Act, and reauthorizes the bill through 2018. There are far too many young Vermonters who do not have a roof over their head each night. While organizations like the Spectrum Youth and Family Services and the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth do their best to provide emergency shelter, services, and housing for youth who are homeless or marginally housed, the need far outweighs their capacity. Next year I plan to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA, which expired at the end of September. RHYA funds outreach services and helps provide shelter for children and young adults who find themselves homeless. I look forward to reauthorizing and improving vital RHYA grant programs to help children in our most vulnerable communities. This reauthorization will also bolster training and resources to ensure our grantees are well equipped to meet the needs of young victims. In addition to our legislative work, the Judiciary Committee will also continue its work to consider judicial and executive nominations. During this past year, unfortunately, the same obstruction that plagued the Senate during the first-term of the Obama administration continued to delay the rate of confirmations to appointments on the Federal bench and the Executive Branch. The 113th Congress began with a high level of vacancies on the Federal judiciary. As of January 2013, there were 77 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, and of these, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts determined 27 to be ``judicial emergencies.'' Over 2013, the number of vacancies steadily climbed to around 90. While we were able to confirm a total of 46 judicial nominees this year, including 11 circuit court and 31 district court nominees, we were unable to keep pace with new vacancies. By December of this year, there were a total of 88 judicial vacancies, 35 of which are judicial emergency vacancies. In stark contrast, at the end of the fifth year of the Bush administration, there were only 49 judicial vacancies, including 16 judicial emergency vacancies. This year, the Senate voted to confirm two high-level nominees to key law enforcement positions at the U.S. Department of Justice: James Comey, Jr. to be the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and B. Todd Jones to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It was unfortunate that the majority leader was required to file cloture on both of these nominations before we could get to a confirmation vote. In stark contrast with the treatment of previous FBI Director nominees, who were all confirmed by the full Senate within a day or two of being reported by the Judiciary Committee, James Comey is the first FBI Director nominee in Senate history to be filibustered. He was ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly by a vote of 93 to 1. Two days later, the Senate confirmed B. Todd Jones by a vote of 53 to 42, making him the first confirmed head of the ATF since that position became Senate-confirmable in 2006. The consideration of nominations is one of the most important functions of the Judiciary Committee. I am hopeful that we will not see the same sort of obstructionism and dilatory tactics that we encountered during 2013. In the coming year, we must redouble our efforts to work past our differences to find bipartisan, commonsense solutions to our Nation's problems; I know that that is what Vermonters expect of me. We have seen so far in this Congress an unprecedented level of gridlock, partisanship, and political brinksmanship, which culminated in a costly and unnecessary Republican government shutdown in October. We can and must do better, and I hope that we can put the obstructionism of this past year behind us. The American people expect and deserve better. We owe it to our constituents to work together to pass commonsense bipartisan compromise legislation, and we have already seen that we can do just that. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build upon the progress we have made and find meaningful solutions to the many challenges we face as a country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a unique Vermont asset that recently gained national attention: the granite industry. Due largely to its versatility, high quality and immense quantity, granite proved integral to the early economic development of my home State and continues to play a vital role today. The people of Barre, VT, have been mining granite since the 1800s, when it was learned that the unusually high quality of the stone found in the town's hillsides was in high demand. This discovery had local and global implications. Granite from the Rock of Ages quarry in Barre was supplied to help construct columns in the Vermont State House that still stand today. Additionally, the art of stone carving that the granite industry created attracted skilled immigrants to Vermont from throughout Europe and Canada. In fact, both my grandfathers were stone carvers in Vermont. With its museum, tours, and even a sandblasting experience, the Rock of Ages quarry has expanded its offerings to serve as an educational and historical site, attracting visitors from around the world. Recently, the Timberland Boot Company visited the quarry for a photo shoot. They became so enamored by the community and its people that they ended up highlighting the area in a new line of footwear, noting that it was influenced by ``a 150-year-old granite industry that transformed the tiny New England town into an international destination for commerce and art.'' I am very proud of the people of Barre for embracing and preserving the important history and culture the granite industry brought to Vermont. The recognition that the Timberland Boot Company gave to Rock of Ages is well deserved. I ask that an article printed in The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus on November 26, 2013, ``Marketers find Barre history just the right fit,'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in what I hope is a sign of things to come, today, I expect the Senate to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act. The result of the long-awaited budget conference--one that had long been requested by Chairwoman Murray but never agreed to by Senate Republicans--the agreement has found some common ground and reflects a shared commitment to work for the American people--something in short supply in Congress these days. The budget deal we are considering today is a true compromise. I believe it would be difficult to find any Member of Congress who fully embraces every aspect of this agreement. In spite of that, there is broad, bipartisan support for the bill, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House late last week and the bipartisan vote by which cloture was invoked here in the Senate. There is bipartisan support for the overall goal of ending this manufactured budget stalemate that we currently face. The Bipartisan Budget Act will provide us with the our top-line spending levels for the remainder of this fiscal year and next and, most importantly, will prevent the full force of a second round of sequestration's indiscriminate and devastating cuts. This is welcome news for nearly every American who has seen how devastating the sequester has been for their communities and for those who have anxiously awaited a second round of deeper, more painful cuts. With agencies facing budgets that just simply could not meet their basic obligations to the public and to the Nation's priorities and with their coffers to insulate programs and prevent furloughs and layoffs exhausted, allowing the sequester to lengthen and deepen truly would have been debilitating and would have stunted our ongoing economic recovery. While this is not the budget I would have written and while it is paid for in a number of ways with which I simply disagree, we are at a juncture at which we cannot allow the goal of perfection to bring on another body blow to the Nation and to our economy. One thing I have heard clearly from Vermonters is that we must replace the sequester. While not perfect, this deal will in fact save jobs, reduce unnecessary furloughs, and will not prioritize defense spending at the cost of our education and housing programs as so many other budget proposals have in the past. I was proud to support a Senate budget and Senate appropriations bills that would fully replace sequestration by closing corporate tax loopholes and making responsible cuts. I am disappointed that this deal does not more closely follow the framework or provide the funding levels supported earlier by the Senate. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I welcome the fact that this deal will mean that we will be able to get back to the work of passing annual appropriations bills through regular order, ending the practice of putting these budget decisions on autopilot through continuing resolutions. The annual appropriations process provides us with the opportunity to make much needed adjustments to agency priorities and budgets. This budget also allows a return to regular order while keeping the promises we have made to seniors. It protects Social Security and Medicare benefits from the harmful cuts included in the earlier Ryan Budget. But there certainly are areas in which this deal is lacking. I had hoped any budget agreement we considered would include an extension of unemployment insurance that will end later this month for 1.3 million Americans. It is disappointing that it does not. Unemployment insurance is a vital component of our ongoing recovery and a lifeline to millions of Americans as they search for work in this challenging economy. I hope the bipartisan spirit that is the basis of this agreement can continue into the new year, and I hope that when the Senate, early in the new year, considers legislation to restore this lifeline of unemployment insurance, Senators and Representatives will support an extension. Unfortunately, my disappointment is not reserved only for what was not included in the deal but also for ways this budget pays to replace sequestration. A provision included in this agreement could negatively impact not- for-profit student loan servicers around the country by removing $3.1 billion in mandatory funding and the requirement that the Department of Education work with these organizations service direct Federal loans. The nonprofit Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, has been servicing Federal loans and chalking up high borrower satisfaction rate while doing this work. I appreciate Chairwoman Murray's clarification that this provision is not aimed at ending existing contracts like VSAC's, but I am concerned that the funding used to service these loans will now need to be found elsewhere. Our discretionary budget is stretched thin as it is, and this provision will arrive on the doorstep of an already overburdened Education Department. Even though we have reduced the deficit by $2.4 trillion since the start of fiscal year 2011, with nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction coming from $1.8 trillion in spending, there is ongoing pressure to find additional ways to put money toward deficit reduction. It concerns me that this budget proposal will devote $23 billion toward deficit reduction--barely a drop in the bucket of the larger picture-- by forcing those who have served in our military, future Federal employees, and airline passengers--but not the airlines--to pay for it. Under this proposal, many Active-Duty military retirees are targeted for Federal spending cuts by a reduction to their cost-of-living adjustment until they reach age 62. This is a bait-and-switch maneuver that will cost them thousands of dollars in compensation that they were promised and have earned--many of them while bravely serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That just doesn't sit right with me. This provision, which saves only $6 billion, is set to be phased in over several years until full implementation in 2017. Unfortunately, these pension reforms will not be grandfathered in for military retirees, as will be done for Federal employees--the only positive component of the measure addressing Federal worker pensions in this legislation. It is my hope that the delay of its application will give Congress the time to responsibly replace the savings from these changes to military retiree compensation. I am disappointed that the only deal that could receive bipartisan support does not ask oil companies to sacrifice their tax breaks but instead asks for sacrifices from our mititary retirees and hard-working Federal workforce. And instead of closing tax loopholes benefiting private jet owners and companies hiding profits overseas, we are forced to find savings through cuts to our conservation programs. I have always believed that getting our fiscal house in order must go hand in hand with policies that promote economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class. Without this deal, sequestration would bring to a halt economic growth and threaten to undo the progress we have made. Further sequestration undoubtedly would increase furloughs and eliminate jobs. Sequestration would devastate housing programs keeping roofs over families this winter and gut programs supporting the education of our children, lifesaving technology for law enforcers, and services for crime victims. Sequestration is a blunt, harmful, and mindless instrument. The Bipartisan Budget Act, while not perfect, is the lifeline we need to prevent that bleak sequestration future from becoming a reality. It is time for us to move beyond these manufactured budget crises and focus on the many remaining challenges that matter most to the American people.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I could have 1 minute now on a matter of some importance.

Mr. LEAHY. The White House has released a report that was prepared by the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The message is very clear. The message to the NSA is now coming from every branch of government, from every corner of our Nation: NSA, you have gone too far. The bulk collection of Americans' data by the U.S. Government has to end. The review group came to the same conclusion that I have about the utility of the section 215 phone records program, the same conclusion that Judge Leon found just the other day, calling it unconstitutional. They said the section 215 program was ``not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.'' They say what many of us have been saying, that just because we can collect massive amounts of data doesn't mean we should do so. The report states: Although we might be safer if the government had ready access to a massive storehouse of information about every detail of our lives, the impact of such a program on the quality of life and on individual freedom would simply be too great. Senator Lee, I, and others have legislation to curtail this. I think for the sake of our Nation and the sake of our Constitution we should. In October, I introduced with Senator Lee the USA FREEDOM Act--a bipartisan and bicameral bill that ends the dragnet collection of Americans' phone records and recalibrates the government's surveillance authorities. This is commonsense legislation that has broad support from legislators across the political spectrum, civil liberties groups, and technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Yahoo. I welcome the report and call on the President to immediately consider implementing the recommendations that can be achieved without legislation. I have invited the members of the President's Review Group to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, and look forward to discussing their important recommendations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I may join in this colloquy, I am glad for the clarification from the senior Senator from Washington and am pleased to know it is her legislative intent for the Department of Education to continue to use not-for-profit servicers and maintain their existing contracts and that not-for-profit servicers will be permitted to compete in the future for additional accounts. Like other not-for-profits around the country, the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, has provided counseling services and low-cost loans to students and Vermonters for more than 40 years. Since then, VSAC has worked hard to establish and maintain strong and longstanding working relationships with Vermont's higher education institutions, as well as K-12 schools, to provide outreach programs critical to the economic vitality of Vermont. In their new role servicing Federal loans, VSAC has consistently received praise from their customers and scored high in customer satisfaction surveys. In fact, when Congress switched to direct lending we ensured that not-for-profit servicers would continue to service Federal loans because of the superior customer service experience that not-for-profits servicers have consistently provided. I am glad that Congress is continuing to recognize the importance of not-for-profit servicers in our communities and intends to allow for their continued role of servicing Federal loans and helping more students gain access to college and more students to complete their degrees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the confirmation of Jeh Johnson to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Johnson's distinguished career in public service, including his service as a Federal prosecutor and as general counsel of the Department of Defense, will suit him well as he takes on this new and very challenging responsibility. I look forward to inviting Mr. Johnson to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing in the new year, which he has committed to do. Mr. Johnson will oversee many issues within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, not the least of which is Federal immigration policy. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Johnson recently and discuss some of the issues that have been of interest to me over the last several years. I encouraged him to continue to support the exceptional work U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas has done to make USCIS a better, stronger agency. In particular, I encouraged Mr. Johnson to build upon Director Mayorkas' work to strengthen and improve the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which is a successful, job-creating immigration program that has transformed parts of Vermont and other communities across the country. I look forward to working with Mr. Johnson and Director Mayorkas following his confirmation as Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security to continue the partnership the Senate Judiciary Committee developed with USCIS to make the improvements necessary to maintain the highest standards of integrity in this important program, and to sustain it as a significant economic engine for the United States. I relayed to Mr. Johnson my concerns about Border Patrol checkpoints in the interior of the country, such as the one that the previous administration implemented and operated nearly 100 miles south of the Canadian border on Interstate 91 in Vermont. Over the past several years, I have heard from many Vermonters who find the idea of a Federal checkpoint 100 miles from the Canadian border, deep into the State of Vermont, entirely inconsistent with Vermont values and an overbearing Federal presence that creates an environment susceptible to racial profiling and the needless harassment of law abiding citizens. I continue to have serious questions about the effectiveness of checkpoints such as these, especially when weighed against the significant intrusion into the privacy of Americans. I also discussed with Mr. Johnson my concerns related to the treatment of Americans returning to the United States, in particular the practice of CBP officials conducting warrantless searches of Americans' persons and belongings, including conducting forensic searches of electronic devices. These searches within the border zone are not subject to the usual protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to Americans. Recent CBP activities have raised serious questions about whether Federal officials are circumventing the protections of the Fourth Amendment by conducting opportunistic searches on individuals when those officials know they will be reentering the United States. As I wrote in a letter to the current acting secretary, such authority must be used with great restraint. I look forward to continuing my discussions about these important issues with Mr. Johnson. Finally, I will seek to work with Mr. Johnson to address the overbroad material support bar in our immigration law. It has resulted in people, including vulnerable refugees, being unfairly barred from the United States based solely on de minimus commercial or social conduct that has negligible connection to the support of terrorism. One example involves an individual who sold flowers to members of a terrorist group, and is now considered to have provided ``material support'' to terrorism. That simply does not make sense and must be changed. As I have with his predecessors, I will urge Mr. Johnson to address this unjust situation as soon as possible after he takes office. I congratulate Jeh Johnson on his confirmation and look forward to working with him as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to recognize the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the ``Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act'' which occurred this past Saturday. Back in 2003, I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to pass this legislation to improve the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits-- PSOB--program by allowing families of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes to qualify for Federal survivor benefits. I am proud to mark the 10-year anniversary of this important program. I first want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical responders for the work they do for the American public each and every day. This legislation, like the Public Safety Officers Benefits program, is for them. It is Congress' recognition of the importance of their service to their communities and to the Nation. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to a crime scene or emergency situation. They are often the first line of defense in a natural disaster or national security emergency. They are among our most courageous and dedicated public servants. I applaud their efforts in responding to more than 240 million emergency calls each year--whether those calls involve a fire, crime, medical emergency, natural disaster, or act of terrorism--without hesitation. They act with a steadfast commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens and, sadly, sometimes lose their own lives in the protection of their communities. Each year, hundreds of public safety officers nationwide lose their lives and thousands more are injured while performing their duties. And while these benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all these fallen heroes deserve this financial support from the Federal government. The PSOB program was established in 1976 to authorize a one-time financial payment to the eligible survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers who die in the line of duty. While there had been various efforts over the years to improve the program leading up to 2003, the benefits did not extend to officers suffering a fatal heart attack or stroke from a work-related, non-traumatic injury, such as stress or strain from the job. The Hometown Heroes Act of 2003 expanded PSOB coverage to ensure that the survivors of public safety officers who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while on duty--regardless of whether a traumatic injury is present at the time of the heart attack or stroke--are eligible to receive financial benefits. Ensuring public safety is dangerous, grueling, and stressful work. A first responder's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke exponentially increases when he or she puts on heavy equipment and rushes into a burning building or gets into a shootout with dangerous criminals. Since enactment of the Hometown Heroes law, the Department of Justice has approved 373 claims. This is 373 families who have received this important support in the face of a tragedy. The families of these brave public servants deserve coverage under the PSOB program and I am grateful that Congress was able to pass legislation to make sure the law covered these situations. Over the past few years I have increasingly sought ways to improve the PSOB program. Last year, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, I was successful in adding to that legislation the Dale Long Act. The inclusion of this amendment fixed coverage gaps in the Federal PSOB program by extending benefits to private, non- emergency medical services--EMS--volunteers and personnel. In Vermont alone, this change covers an estimated 1,200 EMS personnel for the program. This legislation also streamlined what had been an unwieldy and unnecessarily long appeals process for claimants, clarified the list of eligible survivor recipients, and eliminated an artificial distinction under current law to include vascular ruptures as a type of injury that would make a public safety officer's survivors qualified for Hometown Heroes benefits. Since 2012, as a result of the Dale Long Act's enactment, an additional 23 Hometown Heroes cases have been approved. Finally, I want to recognize the outstanding work of Director Denise O'Donnell and her staff at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Under Director O'Donnell's leadership, her dedicated staff has put into place significant reforms and improvements to the program that have increased efficiency, transparency, and communication with the survivors of fallen first responders with pending claims. They are putting to good use the new statutory provisions that were enacted as part of the Dale Long Act provisions that make the program more cost effective and easier for administrators and claimants to find resolution. As a former prosecutor, Director O'Donnell understands the importance of this program to first responders across the country and she has worked very hard to listen to their concerns and act on them. I know the staff members within the PSOB program office recognize the solemnity and importance of the work they do and recognize that each case represents a family that has endured a great sacrifice. They carry out their duties with the respect these cases deserve and I thank them as they continue to carry out the promise Congress made to America's first responders over 30 years ago. Public safety officers are part of the bedrock of our Nation. We must continue to recognize their hard work and selfless dedication to communities across this country and ensure that they and their families have the protections they need and most certainly deserve.