Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2013, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tonight we will vote on the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On Tuesday, we were finally able to invoke cloture on her nomination, after it had been unjustifiably filibustered by Senate Republicans for nearly 3 months after being favorably voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The DC Circuit is often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation and should be operating at full strength. We are finally taking another step towards making this Court operate at full strength for the American people. Nina Pillard is an accomplished litigator whose work includes 9 Supreme Court oral arguments, and briefs in more than 25 Supreme Court cases. She drafted the Federal Government's brief in United States v. Virginia, which after a 7 to 1 decision by the Supreme Court made history by opening the Virginia Military Institute's doors to female students and expanded educational opportunity for women across the country. Since then, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend VMI and go on to serve our country. She has not only stood up for equal opportunities for women, but for men as well. In Nevada v. Hibbs, Ms. Pillard successfully represented a male employee of the State of Nevada who was fired when he tried to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for his sick wife. In a 6 to 3 opinion authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled for her client, recognizing that the law protects both men and women in their caregiving roles within the family. She has also worked at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, an office that advises on the most complex constitutional issues facing the executive branch. And prior to that, Ms. Pillard litigated numerous civil rights cases as an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. At Georgetown Law, Ms. Pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil procedure, and co-directs the law school's Supreme Court Institute. She has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible ranking--Unanimously Well Qualified--to serve as a Federal appellate judge on the DC Circuit. Today, however, I have heard some unfortunate and unfair attacks on this fine woman. I have heard comments that she would be ``the most left wing judge'' in U.S. history; that she has extreme views on abortion and religious liberty; and that she would ``rubber stamp'' the most radical legislative and regulatory proposals. One might expect these outrageous accusations to come from right wing fringe groups, but to hear some of these outlandish accusations on the Senate floor is unfortunate. So let me clear the record. Nina Pillard is one of the finest nominees we have had before this body. On the issue of abortion, Republicans have cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to try to paint her as someone she is not. The truth is that taken as a whole, her writings have focused on bridging the gap between pro-life and pro-choice advocates by ``finding common ground for ways to reduce reliance on abortion.'' More importantly, I cannot ignore the double standard of certain Senators on the issue of abortion. In 2002, the Senate unanimously confirmed President Bush's nomination of Michael McConnell to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote. Professor McConnell argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and urged the Supreme Court to overturn it. He applauded a Federal judge for refusing to convict anti-abortion protestors, even though they had clearly violated the law, because of his sympathetic reading of the defendants' motives. Similarly, in 2002, the Senate confirmed William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit, even though he called Roe v. Wade the ``worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.'' Another President Bush nominee, J. Leon Holmes, was confirmed to the Federal district court in Arkansas, even though he had argued that abortion should be banned even in case of rape because pregnancy from rape is as uncommon as ``snowfall in Miami.'' He had also written that wives should be submissive to their husbands. He was not filibustered. He was confirmed. Each of these judicial nominees stated under oath in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that they could set aside their personal beliefs and would interpret the law consistent with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. They were confirmed. Nina Pillard testified under the same oath that, ``A judge's opinions and views should have no role in interpreting the Constitution.'' Are we to believe that only judicial nominees who do not support a woman's access to abortion services are able to set aside their personal views to be fair and impartial judges? I cannot help but notice the glaring double standard that is imposed on Nina Pillard. On the issue of religious liberty, Senate Republicans continue to misrepresent comments Ms. Pillard made about the possible outcome of a Supreme Court case to suggest she is hostile to religious freedom. In a 2011 briefing to educate the press on legal issues in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, she described the issue in the case, identified what was difficult about it, and offered a prediction of how the Court might resolve it. Her prediction turned out to be wrong. If Senators, who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, were held accountable every time they incorrectly predicted the outcome of a Supreme Court case, I am not sure how many of us would be left. Ultimately, she has testified that if confirmed she would uphold the Supreme Court's precedent on the issue. The suggestion that Ms. Pillard will be ``the most left-wing judge in the history'' is simply outlandish hyperbole, as demonstrated by the bipartisan support she has received. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy under President George W. Bush, wrote in a letter of support for her nomination that ``Based on our long and varied professional experience together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity. . . Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments. . . She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the federal appellate judge-- qualities that make her well prepared to take on the work of a D.C. Federal Judge.'' Former FBI Director and Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas William Sessions has written that her ``rare combination of experience, both defending and advising government officials, and representing individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, would be especially valuable in informing her responsibilities as a judge.'' Nina Pillard has also received letters of support from 30 former members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including 8 retired generals; 25 former Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials; 40 Supreme Court practitioners, including Laurence Tribe and Carter Phillips, among many others. Despite having filled nearly half of law school classrooms for the last 20 years, women are grossly underrepresented on our Federal courts. We need women on the Federal bench. A vote to end this filibuster is a vote to break yet another barrier and move in the historic direction of having our Federal appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of the country. I commend President Obama on his nominations of highly qualified women like Nina Pillard, Patricia Millett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. In each of these women, the Senate has had the opportunity to vote to confirm women practicing at the pinnacle of the legal profession. Once the Senate confirmed Justice Kagan, the highest court in the land had more women than ever before serving on its bench. With the confirmation and appointment of Nina Pillard, the same will be true for what many consider to be the second highest court in the land, the DC Circuit because she will be the fifth active female judge on the court. Never before have five women jurists actively served on that court at one time. I look forward to that moment and to further increasing the diversity of our Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this outstanding nominee. This Nation would be better off for Nina Pillard serving as a judge on the DC Circuit. Today, the Senate will also vote on the nominations of Elizabeth A. Wolford, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York; Landya B. McCafferty, of New Hampshire, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire; Brian Morris, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana; and Susan P. Watters, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana. Senate Republicans have continued to abuse the filibuster and required cloture to confirm all four of these noncontroversial district court nominees. All four of these nominees were reported unanimously by voice vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee. They all have the support of their home State senators. With the filibuster of these four district court nominees, Senate Republicans have now filibustered 24 of President Obama's district court nominees. Not a single district court nominee was filibustered under President Bush's 8 years in office. I hope Senate Republicans come around so that we can work together to meet the needs of our Federal judiciary so that the American people can have the justice system they deserve.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for confirming Judge Patricia M. Wald to be a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, ``PCLOB''. The Senate previously confirmed Judge Wald to this post on August 2, 2012. The President renominated Judge Wald to this position in March, and the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination without objection months ago. Like many other nominees, her confirmation has been held up on the floor for months by Senate Republicans. During her tenure on this important oversight board, Judge Wald has served with great professionalism and dedication. And last month, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that the President can bestow. For the past several months, our Nation has been engaged in a national debate about the ever-growing need for limits on the government's surveillance powers. The House and the Senate are considering bipartisan legislation to rein in those expansive powers, in an effort to better protect Americans' privacy and to increase transparency and oversight. The PCLOB is also expected to issue an important report on the government's surveillance programs to the President and Congress. Today's confirmation vote will ensure that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board remains at full strength as the board continues this work to safeguard our constitutional rights. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike have supported the work of this non-partisan board. I commend the Senate for confirming this well qualified nominee, so that the PCLOB can continue to carry out its important responsibilities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will finally have the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of Patricia Millett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Over the course of her 25-year legal career, Ms. Millett has risen through the ranks of government and private practice to earn a place among the best appellate practitioners in the country. She has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. She worked in the Justice Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations. She is unquestionably qualified and deserves to be confirmed without further delay so she can get to work for the American people. Patricia Millett's career mirrors that of the last DC Circuit judge to occupy the very seat to which she is nominated--that of John Roberts, Jr. I voted for his confirmation to both the DC Circuit and later to the Supreme Court. I knew at the time of those votes that I would not agree with every decision he would make on the bench, but I voted for him because of his temperament and his excellent reputation as a lawyer. John Roberts was confirmed unanimously to the DC Circuit on the day the Judiciary Committee completed consideration of his nomination and reported it to the Senate--at a time when the caseload of the DC Circuit by any measure was lower than it is today. If only Senate Republicans had been willing to apply the same standard for Ms. Millett. Instead, they decided to filibuster her nomination even though they had promised to only filibuster nominations under ``extraordinary circumstances''. If those Senators had been true to their word, I do not believe we would have reached the tipping point on the use of the filibuster. By refusing to allow a vote for any existing vacancy on the DC Circuit, Republicans took their determined obstruction to an unprecedented level. As the senior most Senator serving today, I approach changes to the tradition and history of the Senate with great reluctance. I have always believed in the Senate's unique protection of the minority party. I have held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out; that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of more than 310 million Americans would do the right thing. Now that the Senate has changed its precedents to overcome the escalating obstruction of some, I hope reasonable Republicans will join us in restoring the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties. I hope this will include a vote to confirm Patricia Millett to the DC Circuit. Ms. Millett is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. She has engaged in significant community service and committed herself to pro bono work. She helps the neediest among us, volunteering through her church to prepare meals for the homeless and serving regularly as an overnight monitor at a local shelter. Through her legal work, Ms. Millett has earned broad bipartisan support. This includes the support of Peter Keisler, Carter Phillips, Kenneth Starr, Theodore Olson, and Paul Clement, and a bipartisan group of 110 appellate practitioners, as well as 37 Deputy Solicitors General and Assistants to the Solicitor General from both Republican and Democratic administrations. She is supported by the national president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, and many others. Patricia Millett's service to our Nation is not limited to her legal career or her humanitarianism. She is part of our Nation's storied military family, a family that we have called on repeatedly in the past decade. Her husband is a retired Navy reservist, and as a military spouse, Ms. Millett is part of our Nation's military fabric. She understands personally what we ask of our servicemembers and their families. At the height of Patricia Millett's legal career, her husband received orders to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For nearly a year, she balanced Supreme Court arguments and the demands of being a single parent all while reassuring her children that their father would return home safe. But not only is Ms. Millett committed to her own military family, she has helped to secure employment protections for members of our National Guard and Reserve through her pro bono legal work. In a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, Ms. Millett represented an Army Reservist who was fired, in part, because some of his co-workers did not like his military absences. The successful arguments that Ms. Millett helped craft have made it easier for all members of our Reserve and National Guard to protect their rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Patricia Millett embodies what we ask our military families to do on behalf of their country. Military spouses juggle all the challenges that every American family faces--but often with the added pressure of deployments and extended separations. I want to thank all the military spouses who are in the Senate gallery today and those watching on C- SPAN who have worked tirelessly to support the nomination of ``one of their own''. We should recognize, honor and support our military families not just through words, but through meaningful action. A vote to confirm Patricia Millett is that meaningful action. Today the Senate finally has the opportunity to vote for the confirmation of Patricia Millett. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this outstanding nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, for the second time in a month, we are debating whether to allow a confirmation vote on the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Yesterday, we were finally able to vote on the nomination of Patricia Millett after many months of being filibustered by Senate Republicans. I am glad we are making more progress today on another exceptional nominee. The DC Circuit is often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation and should be operating at full strength. Today we will take a step towards making this court operate at full strength for the American people. In late November, a bipartisan majority of Senators voted in favor of moving to an up-or-down vote on Nina Pillard's nomination, but we fell short by three votes. The same efforts to remove the Republican blockade of this President's nominees to fill vacancies on the DC Circuit that allowed the Senate to confirm Patricia Millett earlier this week will similarly allow the Senate to move forward on Nina Pillard's nomination so she can be confirmed and get to work for the American people. Nina Pillard is an accomplished litigator whose work includes nine Supreme Court oral arguments, and briefs in more than 25 Supreme Court cases. She drafted the Federal Government's brief in United States v. Virginia, which after a 7-1 decision by the Supreme Court made history by opening the Virginia Military Institute's doors to female students and expanded educational opportunity for women across the country. Since then, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend VMI and go on to serve our country. Ms. Pillard has not only stood for equal opportunities for women but for men as well. In Nevada v. Hibbs, Ms. Pillard successfully represented a male employee of the State of Nevada who was fired when he tried to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for his sick wife. In a 6-3 opinion authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled for her client, recognizing that the law protects both men and women in their caregiving roles within the family. She has also worked at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, an office that advises on the most complex constitutional issues facing the executive branch. And prior to that, Ms. Pillard litigated numerous civil rights cases as an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. At Georgetown Law, Ms. Pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil procedure, and co-directs the law school's Supreme Court Institute. She has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible ranking--Unanimously Well Qualified--to serve as a Federal appellate judge on the DC Circuit. She also has significant bipartisan support. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy under President George W. Bush, has written that ``Based on our long and varied professional experience together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity . . . Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments . . . She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the federal appellate judge--qualities that make her well prepared to take on the work of a DC Federal Judge.'' Former FBI Director and Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas William Sessions has written that her ``rare combination of experience, both defending and advising government officials, and representing individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, would be especially valuable in informing her responsibilities as a judge.'' Nina Pillard has also received letters of support from 30 former members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including 8 retired generals; 25 former Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials; 40 Supreme Court practitioners, including Laurence Tribe and Carter Phillips, among many others. Despite having filled nearly half of law school classrooms for the last 20 years, women are grossly underrepresented on our Federal courts. We need women on the Federal bench. A vote to end this filibuster is a vote to break yet another barrier and move in the historic direction of having our Federal appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of the country. I commend President Obama on his nominations of highly qualified women such as Nina Pillard, Patricia Millett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. In each of these women, the Senate has had the opportunity to vote to confirm women practicing at the pinnacle of the legal profession. Once the Senate confirmed Justice Kagan, the highest court in the land had more women than ever before serving on its bench. With the confirmation and appointment of Nina Pillard, the same will be true for what many consider to be the second highest court in the land, the DC Circuit, because she will be the fifth active female judge on the court. Never before have five women jurists actively served on that court at one time. I look forward to that moment and to further increasing the diversity of our federal bench. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of ending the filibuster on this outstanding nominee. This Nation would be better off for Nina Pillard serving as a judge on the DC Circuit. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tonight the Senate passed by unanimous consent a clean extension of the authority the Supreme Court Police use to protect Supreme Court Justices, their employees, and guests when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. I have worked with my counterparts in the House for months to move this extension without amendments because that authority is set to expire at the end of this month. Last month, the House voted by an overwhelming majority of 399 to 3 to pass this bipartisan bill, which extends the Supreme Court Police's authority to protect Supreme Court Justices, their staff, and official guests off Supreme Court grounds 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 of Justices off the grounds of the Supreme Court, it was all the more imperative that we pass this extension without delay. I look forward to President Obama signing this bill into law and thank the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Representatives Coble and Watt, as well as Representatives Conyers, Marino, and Holding for working with me to ensure enactment of this extension. The Senate also passed by unanimous consent a bipartisan bill to reorganize Mississippi's Southern District from five divisions to four divisions, which was recommended by Chief Judge Louis Guirola of the Southern District of Mississippi. This realignment will allow the Southern District to absorb the counties formerly served by a now- closed courthouse in Meridian, and the District will be able to better serve the needs of litigants, jurors, the bar, and the general public. This commonsense piece of legislation promotes efficiency and saves money in the Southern District of Mississippi. I thank Representatives Coble and Watt for sponsoring this important improvement and look forward to its swift enaction. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on December 3, 2013, the House of Representatives passed a 10-year reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act. This law prohibits firearms that are undetectable by widely deployed security screening technologies such as x-ray and metal detectors. These are the standard technologies used by law enforcement officials to protect the public in State and Federal government buildings, courthouses, airports, and a host of other public spaces and events and these are the same technologies that protect the public and elected officials in the Capitol and congressional office buildings, where so many congressional staff and members of the public work and participate in the democratic process in an open and accessible environment. It is not difficult to appreciate why lethal weapons capable of evading such detection cause significant concern for the law enforcement community. This law has been the widely supported policy of Congress since 1988, when the legislation was signed by President Reagan. Ten years ago, Senator Hatch and I came together to reauthorize this law in 2003. While today's legislation is an important step to reauthorize this law, we have more work to do. Law enforcement experts have urged Congress to make modest changes necessary to close a loophole that allows an individual who makes a firearm using 3D printing technology to easily evade the reach of the current law. I support those changes in order to better protect the public and update the current law in a responsible way. Unfortunately, these recommendations have been met by Republican objections. As the expiration of this law has crept closer and the issue has gained the greater attention of law enforcement officials and Members of Congress, I worked in the Senate to find bipartisan support for a reauthorization of the law that would include these needed updates. I was disappointed that no Republican senator was willing to engage in a joint effort to responsibly update the law. Today, a functioning, all-plastic, undetectable gun manufactured in the home using publicly available technology is not theoretical; it is reality. Unfortunately, the legislation we pass today fails to provide law enforcement officials with the best tools possible to keep pace with current and rapidly developing technology. This reauthorization does give Congress time to consider necessary updates to the law that law enforcement experts believe are critical to close the loopholes that have been exposed by emerging technologies. I hope that as we go forward, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will closely examine the improvements we need to make to this law and will act responsibly in addressing them. Given this law's long history of bipartisan support, we should work together to carefully consider the recommendations that law enforcement experts have made to make this law better. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am not on the Armed Services Committee, although I was 38 years ago. But I would think that if there are any two people in this body who could work out a program to get the votes set up and voted on it is the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would hope and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to the Democratic and Republican leaders of this Committee, because I think they can probably work it out. There has been a lot of discussion about the major rules change that occurred here today. In my capacity as President pro tempore, I was presiding during that time and did not get a chance to speak. I want to say a few things. In the four decades I have served here, I have been here with both Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have had moments of crisis when I worried that our political differences outweighed the Senate's common responsibility. Yet we were always able to steer our way out of trouble. Majorities of both parties have come and gone, but I have never lost faith in our ability to see ourselves through the divisions and come together to do what is best for the Nation. I have always believed in the Senate's unique protection of the minority party, even when Democrats held a majority in the Senate. When the minority has stood in the way of progress, I have defended their rights and held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out, that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 310 million Americans would do the right thing. That is why I have always looked skeptically at efforts to change the Senate rules. But in the past 5 years it has been discouraging. Ever since President Obama was elected, Senate Republicans have changed the tradition of the Senate, with escalating obstruction of nominations. They crossed the line from the use of the Senate rules to abuse of the Senate rules. In fact, the same abuse recently, and needlessly, shut down our government at a cost of billions of dollars to the taxpayers and billions of dollars to the private sector. I think it is a real threat to the independent, judicial branch of government. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am worried that the Republican obstruction is damaging our ability to fulfill the Senate's unique constitutional responsibility of advice and consent to ensure that the judicial branch has the judges it needs to do its job. Republicans have used these unprecedented filibusters--and they are unprecedented--more than at any time that I have served here. They have obstructed President Obama from appointing to the Federal bench even nominations that were supported by Republican Senators from the State from where the nominee came. They have forced cloture to end filibusters on 34 nominees, far more than we ever saw during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these nominees were, by any standard, noncontroversial and ultimately were confirmed overwhelmingly. In fact, Republican obstruction has left the Federal judiciary with 90 or more vacancies during the past 5 years. Take for example the Republican filibuster of a judicial nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Robert Bacharach last year, despite the support of the Republican Senators from Oklahoma. This marked a new and damaging milestone. Never before had the Senate filibustered and refused to vote on a judicial nominee with such strong bipartisan support, and who was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with virtually unanimous support. Republicans continued to block Senate action on the Bacharach nomination through the end of last Congress and forced his nomination to be returned without action to the President. There is no good reason--none--why Robert Bacharach was not confirmed to serve the people of Oklahoma and the Tenth Circuit as a Federal judge last year. He was finally confirmed this year unanimously. Republicans last year also filibustered William Kayatta, another consensus circuit nominee who had the support of both Republican home State Senators. Like Judge Bacharach, Mr. Kayatta received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary's highest possible rating and had strong bipartisan support and unimpeachable credentials. The same also applies to Richard Taranto, whose nomination was returned to the President at the end of last year after Republicans blocked action on his nomination to a vacancy on the Federal Circuit for more than eight months, despite no opposition in the Senate and despite the support of both Paul Clement and the late Robert Bork. Neither of these nominees faced any real opposition. Yet Republicans stalled both of them through the end of last Congress and forced their nomination to be returned without action to the President. They were both confirmed this year with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed, but as soon as President Obama took office Republicans reversed course. It struck me, because the very first--the very first--nominee to the Federal bench that President Obama sent here was filibustered. Judge Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit. President Obama reached out to the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator Dick Lugar, to select a nominee he supported. Yet, Senate Republicans filibustered his nomination, requiring a cloture vote before his nomination could be confirmed after a delay of seven months. It is almost a case of saying: Okay, Mr. President, you think you got elected? We are going to show you who is boss. We are going to treat you differently than all of the Presidents before you. This has never been done before, to filibuster the President's very first nominee. Somehow this President is going to be told he is different than other Presidents. Senate Republicans have obstructed and delayed nearly every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 14 of them. They abused the Senate's practices and procedures to delay confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months, before he was confirmed by voice vote. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months before she was confirmed 71 to 21. Senate Republicans used procedural tactics to delay for months the Senate confirmation of nominations with the strong support of Republican home State Senators--including Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit; Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit; Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit; Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit; Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit; Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit; Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit; and Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit. The results are clear and devastating. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees during his first term in office to 132 days for President Obama's nominees during his first term in office. This is the result of Republican obstruction and abuse of Senate rules. In most cases, Senate Republicans have delayed and stalled without explanation. How do you explain the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit who was ultimately confirmed 99 to 0? And how else do you explain the needless obstruction of Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, who was filibustered for four months before he was confirmed 98 to 0? In 2012, Senate Republicans refused to consent to a vote on a single circuit court nominee until the majority leader filed cloture, even for nominees with home State Republican support like Adalberto Jordan of Florida--strongly supported by Senator Rubio--and Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona, strongly supported by Senator Kyl. They blocked the Senate from voting on a single circuit court nominee nominated by President Obama last year. Since 1980, the only other Presidential election year in which there were no circuit nominees confirmed who was nominated that same year was in 1996, when Senate Republicans shut down the process against President Clinton's circuit nominees. In the 8 years George W. Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. That was over 8 years. In just 5 years, 42 of President Obama's district court nominees have faced opposition. The majority leader had to file cloture on 20 of them. Federal district court judges are the trial court judges who hear cases from litigants across the country and preside over Federal criminal trials, applying the law to facts and helping settle legal disputes. They handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts and are critical to making sure our courts remain available to provide a fair hearing for all Americans. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best, and have been confirmed quickly with that support. Never before in the Senate's history have we seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Many are needlessly stalled and then confirmed virtually unanimously with no explanation for the obstruction. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-partisan positions. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee I have always acted fairly and consistently whether the President has been a Democrat or a Republican. I have not filibustered nominees with bipartisan support. I have steadfastly protected the rights of the minority and I have done so despite criticism from Democrats. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home State Senators. I will put my record of consistent fairness up against that of any chairman and never acted as some Republican chairmen have acted in blatantly disregarding evenhanded practices to ram through the ideological nominations of President George W. Bush. Regrettably, the answer to my fairness and to my commitment to protecting the rights of the minority has been unprecedented and meritless obstruction. Even though President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, Republicans in the Senate have done away with regular order, imposing unnecessary and damaging delays. Until 2009, judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support were generally confirmed quickly. That has changed, with district nominations taking over four times longer and circuit court nominees over seven times longer than it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Until 2009, we observed regular order and usually confirmed four to six nominees per week, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Since then, Senate Republicans have refused to clear the calendar and slowed us down to a snail's pace. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009--Republicans have required cloture to consider even those nominees later confirmed unanimously. This obstruction was not merely a product of extreme partisanship in a Presidential election year--it has been a constant and across the board practice since President Obama took office. At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans have deliberately refused to vote on several judicial nominees just to take up more time the following year. At the end of 2009 Republicans denied 10 nominations pending on the Executive Calendar a vote. The following year, it took 9 months for the Senate to take action on 8 of them. At the end of 2010 and 2011, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar, taking up nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm them. Last year they blocked 11 judicial nominees from votes, and refused to expedite consideration of others who already had hearings. The effects of this obstruction have been clear. When the Senate adjourned last year, Senate Republicans had blocked more than 40 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees from being confirmed in his first term. That obstruction has led to a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies persisting for over four years. This year, Senate Republicans reached a new depth of pure partisanship. They have decided to shut down the confirmation process altogether for an entire court--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, even though there are three vacancies on that court. Senate Republicans attempt to justify their opposition to filling any of the three vacancies on the DC Circuit with an argument that the court's caseload does not warrant the appointments. We all know that this ploy is a transparent attempt to prevent a Democratic President from appointing judges to this important court. We all know what has happened here in the DC Circuit. In 2003, the Senate unanimously confirmed John Roberts by voice vote as the 9th judge on the DC Circuit at a time when the caseload was lower than it is today. He was confirmed unanimously. No Democrat, no Republican opposed him. 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--giving the court a total of 11 judges in active service. Today there are only eight judges on the court; yet, when Patricia Millett was nominated to that exact same seat by President Obama, a woman with just as strong qualifications as John Roberts--they both had great qualifications--she was filibustered. Some say we should not call that a double standard. Well, I am not sure what else one might call it. We also should not be comparing the DC Circuit's caseload with that of other circuits, as Republicans have recently done. The DC Circuit is often understood to be the second most important court in the land because of the complex administrative law cases that it handles. The court reviews complicated decisions and rulemakings of many Federal agencies, and in recent years has handled some of the most important terrorism and enemy combatant and detention cases since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Comparing the DC Circuit's caseload to other circuits is a false comparison, and those who are attempting to make this comparison are not being fully forthcoming with the American public. Years ago, one of the senior most Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee said this: [C]omparing workloads in the DC Circuit to that of other circuits is, to a large extent, a pointless exercise. There is little dispute that the DC Circuit's docket is, by far, the most complex and time consuming in the Nation. Now, however, that same Senator has engaged in the precise pointless exercise he once railed against. This is an unprecedented level of obstruction. I have seen substantive arguments mounted against judicial nominees, but I have never seen a full blockade against every single nominee to a particular court, regardless of the individual's qualifications. Republicans attempted to take this type of hardline stance with certain executive positions last year and earlier this year, when they refused to allow a vote for any nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Rather than representing substantive opposition to these individual nominees, this obstruction was a partisan attempt to sabotage and eviscerate these agencies which protect consumers and American workers. I have heard some call this tactic ``nullification.'' It is as if the Republicans have decided that the President did not actually win the election in 2008, and was not re-elected in 2012. Senate Republicans backed off this radical and unprecedented hardline stance on executive nominees earlier this year, but they have shown no signs of doing the same with the DC Circuit. And it is not for lack of qualified nominees. This year, Senate Republicans filibustered the nominations of three exceptionally qualified women: Caitlin Halligan, Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard. Earlier this week Republicans filibustered another stellar nominee to this court, Judge Robert Wilkins. I am a lawyer. I have tried cases in Federal courts. I have argued cases in Federal courts of appeal. I always went into those courts knowing I could look at that Federal judge and say: It doesn't make any difference whether I am a Democrat or a Republican, whether I represent the plaintiff or the defendant; this is an impartial court. If we play political games with our Federal judiciary, how long are the American people going to trust the impartiality of our Federal courts? At what point do these games start making people think maybe this is not an independent judiciary? If that day comes, the United States will have given up one of its greatest strengths. Let's go back to voting on judges based on their merit--and not on whether they were nominated by a Democratic President or a Republican President. Let's stop holding President Obama to a different standard than any President before him--certainly no President since I have been in the Senate, and I began with President Gerald Ford. This obstruction is not just bad for the Senate, it is also a disaster for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. In short, as a result of Republican obstruction of nominees, the Senate has failed to do its job for the courts and for the American people, and failed to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. That is why the Senate today was faced with what to do to overcome this abuse and what action to take to restore this body's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next week, Americans across the country will gather with family and friends to celebrate a national tradition, Thanksgiving. Some will give thanks for their good fortune or health over the past year, while others will simply be thankful to see their loved ones together in one place. What most of us will take for granted, however, is that we will have a meal to eat and have a home in which to gather. Far too many Americans will not have that luxury. During this time of reflection, and in honor of National Homelessness and Hunger Awareness week, I would like to take a moment to speak about those who are all too often overlooked, the homeless and the hungry. Each and every day, millions of Americans face the uncertainty of when their next meal will be or when they will be able to feed their family. On any given night, a disgraceful number of Americans face the uncertainty of not knowing where they will sleep. Sadly, many have nowhere to turn. These Americans live in both large States and small, in urban centers, and small, rural towns across the country. These are men, women, and children who live, work, and attend schools in our communities without the basic needs of food security and a place to call home. There are nearly 3,000 Vermonters who do not have a roof over their head each night. And while organizations like the Committee on Temporary Shelter, COTS, 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 people who are homeless or marginally housed, the need far outweighs their capacity. Nationally, we have made some progress to address this issue and have seen the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness and homeless veterans significantly decrease. Unfortunately, the face of homelessness is changing, and the number of families facing homelessness has dramatically increased. Shelters are seeing an unprecedented number of families. Many of these families have at least one adult who is working full time, but who does not earn enough to afford a place to live. Of the 4,244 people who used emergency shelters in Vermont last year, 952 of them were children. We know that children who experience homelessness suffer from high rates of anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and below-average school performance. Regrettably, shelter workers are beginning to see the first signs of generational homelessness. This is unacceptable, and we owe it to those children and families to do more. Across the country nearly 1 in 6 people faces hunger on a daily basis; 1 in 5 children are living in a household with food insecurity. In a Nation where $165 billion worth of food goes to waste each year, it is clear that there is enough food to feed everyone in America. We need to do a better job of getting that food to those who need it most. For the more than 84,000 Vermonters facing food insecurity, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, known as 3Squares in Vermont, is a lifeline helping to feed their families. SNAP is our single most important anti-hunger program providing assistance to nearly 49 million Americans in need of help to afford food. With so many Americans still struggling to put food on the table, it is deplorable that some in Congress continue to call for reductions to food assistance as a way to solve our Nation's deficit problems. No one can deny the effects of hunger on Americans, especially children. Children who live in food insecure homes are at a greater risk of developmental delays, poor academic performance, nutrient deficiencies, obesity and depression. Yet participation in food assistance programs turns these statistics on their head. Federal nutrition programs have been shown to decrease the risk a child will develop health problems and is associated with decreases in the incidence of child abuse. Children from families who receive food stamps have a higher achievement in math and reading and have improved behavior, social interactions and diet quality than children who go without. Two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the disabled, or the elderly who cannot be expected to work. The remaining participants in the program are subject to rigorous work requirements in order to receive continuing benefits. While SNAP offers crucial support to a family's grocery expenses, the benefits far from cover a family's food expenses. With a benefit average of about $1.25 per person, per meal, it is understandable that families typically fall short on benefits by the middle of the month. Across the Nation, wages have remained flat as prices for every day essentials like food, heat, and especially housing, continue to rise. At the same time, as more families find themselves in need of some help, the programs that provide that safety net have been devastated by cuts over the past several years and continue to be targeted for even further reductions in the name of protecting tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil companies. The budget decisions made in Congress have real impacts for real people. Reductions to funding for the organizations providing emergency shelter, or programs that build much needed affordable housing, means more Americans face housing insecurity. Cuts to the SNAP program means benefits will run out earlier in the month and even though donations to food banks and soup kitchens are down, they will see a record number of families looking for a little help to just make it to the next month. As the budget conferees discuss a path forward, it is essential that they find a common sense compromise to replace sequestration and put an end to the deficit reduction on the backs of those most in need. There are just too many people that are one unforeseen expense away from a desperate financial situation that could result in them losing the roof over their head, and the means to feed their family. We can all agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the reality that children living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world do not know when they will get their next meal and do not have a safe place to sleep at night. Every child in America deserves a fair shot. This is why I have championed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Programs authorized by the RHYA have successfully helped countless runaway and homeless youth and their families in Vermont and across the nation over the last 30 years, but we can and must do more. We must recognize the importance of investing in our Nation's youth, and direct resources where they are needed most. Programs authorized by the RHYA expired at the end of September. I hope that we can work to reauthorize and improve RHYA by addressing the needs of children in the most vulnerable communities, and provide services that meet the needs of youth who identify as LGBT and the young victims of trafficking or exploitation. We need more training and resources to help our grantees meet the needs of young victims, and that is what the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides. There are families that are having difficulty making ends meet. We must pass a farm bill that does not include the extreme House cuts to SNAP benefits at levels 10 times as high as the bipartisan Senate bill and nearly twice as high as the House's original bill. Those cuts would mean that each year, an average of three million people will be kicked off food assistance, and hundreds of thousands of children will lose access to school means. I hope that the bipartisan efforts of the Senate to pass a responsible farm bill will help produce a good farm bill out of conference that does not contain these deep and damaging cuts to food assistance. We owe it to the American people to put politics aside and especially during this time of year, to give a voice to those who are most in need, to those often overlooked and marginalized and to start making meaningful progress to eliminating homelessness and hunger in this country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this year, as many others were, I was shocked when the Department of Defense released a stunning report about the increase in sexual assault among the branches of the Armed Forces. Sexual assault in the military is neither a new issue, nor an uncommon one. It has been a problem for decades. Its occurrence is a stain on the honor of our military and Nation that we must all work to eliminate. Military bases are where our troops are supposed to be safe, and to know that they risk being in harm's way not only when deployed but among their fellow servicemembers as well is horrible. I have worked hard to bring greater attention to the ongoing problem of sexual violence in our communities and am proud of the significant improvements we made in the recent reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year. It is time we bring the same level of attention to the crisis on our military bases. While this epidemic is not representative of the vast majority of our service men and women, who serve honorably and conduct themselves commensurate with our expectations of those in uniform, it is also not isolated to just a handful of bad actors. We can no longer ignore that the time is long overdue for meaningful changes to help end sexual assault and harassment in the ranks of our Armed Forces. We must work together to protect victims and provide appropriate help and support and to ensure that those responsible for such crimes are held accountable. Just as our civilian justice system is the envy of the world, our military justice system must also meet that standard. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act, and why I support her amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. In last year's Defense authorization bill, Congress included provisions meant to address sexual assault in the military. That legislation required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe standards for victim support and mandated an independent review and assessment of the systems used to adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses. When the Department of Defense released its fiscal year 2012 report on sexual assault in the military earlier this year, its findings were jarring, and for many myself included they were infuriating. To make matters worse, the problem seems only to be growing. The status quo for how we deal with sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact in the military is untenable. If we are serious about curing this problem, we need to get serious about making fundamental changes to how it is addressed. We cannot expect that by doing the same thing over and over again we will achieve different results. I supported Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's proposals this summer to limit a commander's authority to overturn major court martial verdicts, among other reforms to the system. I am pleased that the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee included this key provision, as well as other measures to address the so-called ``good soldier'' defense and to require commanders to immediately report alleged sexual assaults to the investigative office, in this year's Defense authorization bill. Senator Gillibrand's proposal is another move in the right direction, taking these reforms a step further by removing the determination to bring sexual assault cases from the chain of command and giving that discretion to an experienced military prosecutor. This is a commonsense solution, and I commend her for her clear-eyed and energetic leadership on this issue. Senator McCaskill's proposal also includes strong protections for victims so that the process of getting justice for these crimes does not revictimize those who come forward to report them. I believe Senator McCaskill's proposal also is a step in the right direction to encourage victims to come forward and report these crimes. Our Nation's troops should not have to fear sexual assault, and if they are victims, they certainly should not fear any stigma after bringing to light unwanted sexual contact. Surely we can all agree that we have an obligation to ensure that our men and women in uniform are protected from the threats we can control. Holding perpetrators of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact accountable and caring for, supporting, and protecting those victims is within our control. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting reforms that will fundamentally change the way we approach this issue in order to achieve better results.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been only a few short weeks since the needless government shutdown that cost the Treasury more than $20 billion, disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and their families in every State, threatened to wreak havoc with the world's financial markets, and accomplished nothing. But an important deadline, one critical to determining how we resolve the current budget crisis, is just a few days away. While this approaching deadline does not come with the threat of another government shutdown, if Congress is going to complete work on appropriations bills before the continuing resolution expires on January 15, we need a top-line number from the budget conferees by the end of this week. By Friday, the budget conferees need to find enough common ground to agree on a level to fund the Federal Government for the remainder of the fiscal year. While many have expressed their doubts, there is no reason this cannot be done. People are fed up with putting the process of setting and funding our national priorities on autopilot. It is an abdication of responsibility and a wasteful way to do business. It is equally important that the level of funding replace sequestration. A long-term continuing resolution that funds the government at the House level of $967 billion would be a disaster. Sequestration would become the new normal, funding programs and agencies at levels far below those passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee and below fiscal year 2013. It is stunning--and frightening--that instead of looking to replace sequestration's devastating cuts, we hear from some Members that it is ``working.'' If their intention is to stunt the economic recovery and indiscriminately slash services upon which American families and businesses depend, then I guess they are right. But I don't think most Members of Congress, or most Americans, see it that way. For those of us who want to support our communities and invigorate and sustain our economic recovery, another year of sequestration would be catastrophic. While we are still trying to gauge the full impact of the first round of cuts this year, one thing is clear--another year would be far worse. Agencies have exhausted their carryover funds and creative budgeting options to avoid layoffs, furloughs, and eliminating programs. Absent a budget agreement, the entire Federal Government, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Labor, will suffer significant, mindless cuts. I have spoken several times about the impact of another full year continuing resolution at the House's funding level. I want to take a minute to describe what it would mean for America's children, teachers, and families. LIHEAP, which provides lifesaving home energy assistance, would not receive the $325 million increase over the level included in a continuing resolution, cutting off assistance to about 760,000 more households this winter and next summer. Nearly 40,000 Vermont families rely on LIHEAP in the cold Vermont winters. Early Head Start Programs won't be expanded as the Senate appropriations bill intended, and the 177,000 children who would have received Head Start services will be turned away. Nearly 1,600 Vermont children depend on this assistance every year. Schools around the country already facing budget shortfalls look to the Federal Government to fund services to disadvantaged children through title I grants. Those schools would not receive the $852 million included in the Senate appropriations bill. They would have to look elsewhere for money to provide those services to 1.3 million students in need. Schools would also lose $748 million in grants for special education that were included in the Senate appropriations bill, to help cover the costs of employing more than 9,000 additional special education aides in our schools. NIH would not receive the $2 billion in additional funds included in the Senate appropriations bill and instead would not be able to award 1,300 new research grants. This means that 1,300 additional opportunities to achieve scientific advances that could lead to lifesaving treatments and cures would be missed opportunities. Under a continuing resolution, 159,000 families looking for assistance through the section 8 housing program to help keep a roof over their heads will be turned away because the funding won't be there. In Vermont, 774 families would face losing their housing assistance. The WIC Program won't be able to provide food to the nearly 500,000 infants, children, and families the Senate appropriations bill would help, and working families won't receive the $291 million in additional funding the Senate provides for childcare subsidies. Beyond our borders, we would lose the additional $389 million included in the Senate appropriations bill for global health programs to combat HIV/AIDS and other preventable infectious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and pneumonia, as well as malnutrition. The consequences of such a cut can be measured in lives. Tens of thousands of additional deaths would result from these diseases, tens of thousands of additional children would be orphaned by AIDS, and there would be millions fewer lifesaving immunizations for children, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths that could have been prevented. A full-year continuing resolution would cut the international development assistance account that supports the basic needs of people in the poorest countries by nearly $115 million, including for primary education, food security, and clean water and sanitation programs. The examples go on and on. What we face is, in fact, not a hard choice. It is a choice between doing what is right or scoring political points. The budget conferees have an opportunity to reach meaningful compromise, to replace the ``never supposed to happen'' sequester, and to prove to the American people that they can put partisanship aside when it is in the national interest. That is what is at stake, and I commend the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, for the united stand they have taken for the good of the country. I hope the budget conferees follow their example.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to tell the Senate about Mr. Robert Rossi, a Vermonter who captures the distilled essence of Vermont, and who will be celebrating his 100th birthday this Friday, November 22, 2013. Mr. Rossi represents an inextricable link between where my State, and our country, was, and what it has become, over this most remarkable century. Mr. Rossi was born and has always lived in Barre, VT, the same city where my father was born. Even while defending America in Normandy, or honeymooning with his wife in New York City, his home and his heart were always in Barre. Mr. Rossi grew up in Barre and his father, like my maternal grandparent, immigrated to the United States and Vermont from Italy. He was a product of the Barre school system, and had a football scholarship to Green Mountain Junior College. Shortly after that he was called for service by the United States Army. He arrived at Camp Edwards on Cape Cod the same day Pearl Harbor was attacked, and he then was stationed in Northern Ireland just before his departure to Normandy on that fateful day in the summer of 1944. When he returned stateside, he did not dwell on his experiences abroad, but rather returned to his beloved home, where he was instrumental in one of Vermont's leading industries for nearly four decades of his life: the Barre granite and stone carving industry. It has been estimated that one-third of all public and private monuments in the United States were crafted from or by Barre's quarries and its international association of sculptors and artisans. Mr. Rossi is a man of true character, and it is my pleasure to call the Senate's attention to this notable citizen of the Green Mountain State. I join all Vermonters in offering my sincerest congratulations to Robert Rossi for his genuine lifetime of achievement. I would also like to share a recent article from the Rutland Herald and Times Argus that told his remarkable story and captured many accolades about his illustrious life. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for generations, Vermonters have contributed to our national culture, through art, music, film and prose. Peter Miller is one such artist whose impressive work throughout his life as both a photographer and author has showcased Vermont and its residents and enriching us all. As an amateur photographer, I have followed Peter's work for decades with admiration. From his early beginnings as a U.S. Army photographer to his travels across Europe with Yousuf Karsh, he has channeled his passion and energy into a remarkable art. Over the past 20 years, his unique ability to capture the Vermont spirit has been well documented and his consistent approach to producing authentic depictions of the Vermont way of life is unparalleled. He shuns the commercialization of art and instead creates his work solely to share and promote the values of our small and community-based State. This attitude was evident more than ever when, being honored as the Burlington Free Press ``Vermonter of the Year'' in 2006 for his book ``Vermont Gathering Places,'' he frankly said ``I don't shoot for galleries. I shoot for myself and the people I photograph.'' His appreciation and respect for the traditional culture that defines Vermont is readily evident in his work. He has photographed farm-dotted landscapes, village communities, and generations of Vermont families. When writing the forward to his 2003 book ``Vermont People,'' I noted that ``the Vermont faces in this book speak worlds about living in the State that gave them character, wrinkles and wisdom . . . through their faces, you can see Vermont.'' Peter's most recent work, ``A Lifetime of Vermont People,'' is another testament to his tenacity and tact as a Vermonter. A product of over a year's worth of photography, fundraising, and self-publishing, this book is truly a labor of love. His addition of background stories helps provide greater insight and meaning to the photographs included and through his photography and the recent addition of writing to his repertoire, he gives a face, and a voice, to Vermonters. Peter lives the lifestyle he captures in his photography. A Vermonter for over five decades, he has embraced the way of life that makes the State so special. Like his black and white photographs that draw focus squarely on the subject of the piece, rather than relying on flashy colors to convey a message, he is not interested in glitz and glam. His books have themes that exemplify Vermont: farm women, gathering places, small communities. He laments the waning of iconic farms, the erosion of small town values, and the fading of the once impermeable Vermont way of life. His resiliency is remarkable and his uncanny ability to display the beauty of Vermont in a way words cannot do justice serves as an inspiration for photographers everywhere. I ask unanimous consent that an article in the VT Digger that highlights the lifetime of accomplishments of this extraordinary man be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I read with interest an article this week penned by the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, about a dear friend, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Amidst the partisan gridlock of today's Congress, it is hard to remember a time when Members from both sides of the aisle routinely came together for the common good, rather than for the sake of political ideology. As a daughter of a public servant, Nancy Kassebaum had civic duty in her blood and represented the State of Kansas for nearly two decades. During her time in the Senate, Nancy's leadership, and determination to fight for those who needed it most, was exemplary. Her ability to put politics aside and work across the aisle has had a lasting impact on millions of women and children today. Nancy became the first woman to serve as Chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Here she worked to create the Office of Women's Health Research within the National Institutes of Health, and she fought tirelessly alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to protect abused and neglected children. Nancy was an invaluable resource as chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, and a strong champion condemning the apartheid atrocities during Nelson Mandela's incarceration. Nancy Kassebaum exemplified the determination and leadership it takes to make a remarkable legislator and I am equally proud to call her my friend. I ask unanimous consent that the Politico article, ``Friendship without Ideology'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Mr. Sant was appointed to the Smithsonian Board of Regents on October 24, 2001. He served as chair of the Executive Committee and the Board during the Smithsonian's governance reform efforts. As a leader in the energy field and a committed conservationist, Mr. Sant has generously supported the National Museum of Natural History. His gifts to the Smithsonian have supported the Sant Ocean Hall, the Sant Chair for Marine Science, and an endowment to support the Director's position at the National Museum of Natural History. His service and generosity have kept with and advanced the Smithsonian's founding mission to promote and share knowledge.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Patty Stonesifer's leadership and experience in the corporate sector, coupled with her committed philanthropic work, helped the Smithsonian secure major grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create an endowment to expand youth access to the Smithsonian; to support the construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture; and to support interdisciplinary scholarship and projects to address the Smithsonian's Four Grand Challenges of ``Understanding the American Experience, Valuing World Cultures, Understanding and Sustaining a Bio-diverse Planet, and Unlocking the Mysteries of the Universe.'' Her service helped advance the very mission of the Smithsonian, and her commitment to public service continues today through her work at Martha's Table.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate's adoption today of a resolution Senator Hatch and I submitted supporting the goals and ideals of runaway prevention month. It is a sad reality that millions of young people are living on the streets. We as legislators must do all we can to prevent homelessness and support youth who find themselves without a place to call home. Every child in America deserves a fair shot. This is why I championed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA, reauthorization in 2008 and why I continue working to improve and to extend this important law this year. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, every State receives a basic center grant to provide housing and crisis services for children and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program and the Street Outreach Program. These programs and others authorized by RHYA have helped countless runaway and homeless youth and their families in Vermont and across the Nation over the last 30 years. We must continue these essential programs, too many of which are now unfunded or underfunded due to sequestration and other fiscal constraints. We must recognize the importance of investing in our Nation's youth and direct resources where they are needed most. It is just not acceptable that homeless children are turned away from shelters due to a lack of beds or that services providers are being forced to downsize. We can and must do more. The RHYA's most recent charter expired at the end of September. I hope that we can work to reauthorize and improve this vital law by ensuring it meets the needs of children in our most vulnerable communities. Too often LGBT youth find themselves in need of shelter and support because their families are unaccepting. Programs authorized by RHYA should be trained to respond to LGBT youth and, when possible, strive to reunite them with their families through counseling. We must also update the statute to reflect the tragic reality that runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to trafficking and sexual exploitation. We should ensure grantees are able to meet the needs of young victims of trafficking or exploitation or offer referrals to other qualified service providers. We need smarter training and more resources to help our grantees meet the needs of young victims, and that is exactly what the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on November 15, according to information I have received, three armed men attacked the offices of the Asociacion Pro-Busqueda de Ninas y Ninos Desaparecidos in El Salvador, dousing computers, archives, and confidential documents with gasoline and then lighting them on fire. For Senators who may not be aware, Pro-Busqueda is a small organization devoted to locating Salvadorans who, as children during the civil war, were forcibly taken from their parents, some of whom were killed by Salvadoran military officers, and either ``adopted'' by those officers or sold to other families including foreigners. Pro- Busqueda works to support the Salvadoran birth parents who lost their children to these forced adoptions, and uses DNA technology to help family members find each other. Years ago, a member of my staff visited Pro-Busqueda's office in San Salvador, met the courageous staff and observed the research they were doing. This deplorable attack on Pro-Busqueda followed the abrupt decision by San Salvador's Archdiocese to close Tutela Legal, the highly respected human rights office of the Roman Catholic Church which played an indispensable role in investigating and documenting violations of human rights during the war, including the assassination of Archbishop Romero. The office collected key testimony and other documentary evidence, and there is more of that work to be done. The attack on Pro-Busqueda also followed the welcome but controversial decision by the Salvadoran Supreme Court to accept a case challenging the Amnesty Law, which has provided immunity from prosecution to former Salvadoran military officers implicated in atrocities during the war. I join those who have expressed condolences to the staff of Pro- Busqueda, and urge the Salvadoran Government to conduct a thorough investigation and to punish those responsible. It is tragic that two decades after the signing of the peace accords that ended the war, attempts to determine the fate of kidnapped children elicits this kind of hateful, violent response. It illustrates how much remains to be done to fulfill the promise of the accords and overcome the painful and divisive legacy of that war.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the American patent system has long been the envy of the world. Two years ago, Congress took important action to update and modernize this system for the 21st century by passing the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The Leahy-Smith act has made key improvements to the patent system, strengthening it for the long term. Unfortunately, there are bad actors who are misusing the system by unfairly targeting small businesses and others with lawsuits that are often based on low-quality patents. That is why I joined on Monday with Senator Lee, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Klobuchar to introduce legislation that will build upon the success of the Leahy-Smith act and curb abuses by so-called patent trolls. The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act will take important steps to rein in the most egregious abuses of the patent system. It will improve transparency of patent ownership so that trolls cannot hide behind shell corporations and obscure the true owner of the patents that are being asserted. It will help customers who are sued simply for using a product that they purchased by allowing the case against them to be stayed while the product's manufacturer litigates the suit. The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act will also take steps to crack down on abuses of demand letters that are all too often sent to small businesses simply to extort monetary settlements. When small businesses in Vermont are threatened with lawsuits simply for using document scanners in their offices or offering wi-fi service to their customers, we can all agree that the patent system is not being used as intended. I thank Senator Lee and our cosponsors for joining me in this important effort and applaud Chairman Goodlatte for the work he is doing in the House to address this problem. I look forward to working with all members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as with the House, to pass bipartisan and bicameral legislation that will crack down on these abuses while at the same time preserving the parts of the patent system that have made it the greatest in the world and an engine for job creation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize the Presiding Officer is not allowed to respond, but I want to add my words to those of the distinguished Senator from Colorado that I am delighted to see the Senator in the Chair. Again, as I did the other day, I welcome him to the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. More than 12 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, as we see our military presence in Afghanistan wind down, it is time to take a hard look at our counterterrorism policy. We need to consider which of our policies are working and which, while perhaps well-intentioned when they were adopted in the highly charged weeks and months after 9/11, are not making us safer. There is ample evidence that the status quo is unsustainable. As recent revelations have made clear, we need a careful review of our surveillance activities. For example, this summer many Americans learned for the first time that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale. Despite the massive privacy intrusion of this program, the executive branch has not made the case that this program is uniquely valuable to protecting our national security, and that is why I introduced the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act with Congressman Sensenbrenner. We want to end this dragnet collection and place appropriate safeguards on a wide range of government surveillance authorities. We also must close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. In the coming days the Senate will take up and debate the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. That act contains many provisions that are central to our national security, and many of those provisions will help our allies around the world. Among the most important are provisions that would help make it possible to close the facility at Guantanamo. As long as Guantanamo remains open, it doesn't protect our national security. It serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists, it needlessly siphons away critical national security dollars, and discredits America's historic role as a global leader that defends human rights and the rule of law. As a United States Senator, I feel that this is not the face of America I want the world to see. Currently, 164 individuals remain detained at Guantanamo. Most of them have been there for more than a decade. More than half--84--have been cleared for transfer to another country, but efforts to do so have stalled largely due to irrationally onerous restrictions imposed by Congress. These unnecessary and counterproductive hurdles have made it all but impossible to close Guantanamo, and they have also severely damaged our credibility when we criticize other governments for their use of indefinite detention. We used to be able to do that. Now they look at us and say: How can you speak? Provisions in the 2014 NDAA would ease these restrictions. While they are incremental, they would streamline procedures for transferring detainees to other countries, and, where appropriate, allow them to be transferred to the United States for trial or detention. These are common sense changes and they are necessary if we are serious about putting an end to what I believe is an ugly chapter in our history. There are some who will come to the floor of this Chamber over the next several days to tell us how dangerous and irresponsible it would be to close Guantanamo. I would answer that the facts are simply not with them. The bottom line is that Guantanamo hurts us; it does not help us. Guantanamo does not make us safer. We are all committed--all of us in this body--to protecting the national security of the United States and the American people, but Guantanamo undermines those efforts. Our national security and military leaders have concluded that keeping Guantanamo open is itself a risk to our national security. The facility continues to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. It weakens our alliances with key international partners. Guantanamo does not hold terrorists accountable. The military commission system for trying these detainees does not work. Federal courts have recently overturned two Guantanamo convictions in opinions that will actually prevent the military commission prosecutors from bringing conspiracy and material charges against detainees--a fact acknowledged by the lead military prosecutor at Guantanamo. These charges, however, can be pursued in Federal courts where our prosecutors have a strong track record of obtaining long prison sentences against those who seek to do us harm. Since 9/11, Federal courts have convicted more than 500 terrorism-related suspects, and they remain securely behind bars. Guantanamo is also diverting scarce resources from critical national security efforts at a time when the Department of Defense faces deep and ongoing cuts. Most Americans would be surprised to know how much it costs to maintain Guantanamo. It costs about $450 million a year to house 164 individuals. That means we are spending about $2.7 million per detainee every year--every year--year in, year out, and some have been there for more than a decade. In Federal prisons, it costs less than $80,000 a year to hold an individual, compared to $2.7 million at Guantanamo. So $80,000 at our most secure Federal prisons, which have housed hundreds of convicted terrorists for decades. There has never been an escape. And, despite the fact the Pentagon rejected a request earlier this year to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to overhaul the aging compound, House Republicans included this spending in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act. We can't get money for school lunches for our children, we can't get money for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, but we can continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more for Guantanamo. Our priorities as Americans are upside down. The money squandered on this long-failed experiment would be better served helping disabled veterans returning home from war and soldiers preparing to defend our Nation in the future. We don't have enough money to do that, but we have enough money to keep Guantanamo open. Come on. This waste must end. Guantanamo has undermined our reputation as a champion of human rights. Countries that respect the rule of law and human rights do not lock away prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial. We condemn authoritarian states that carry out such practices and we should not tolerate them ourselves, even for our worst enemies. We are a better people than that. The status quo at Guantanamo is untenable and I appreciate President Obama's renewed vow to shutter this unnecessary, expensive, and counterproductive prison. But in order for the President's plan to be successful, Congress has to do its part. We have to pass common sense provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this issue as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I stand solidly with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and others who have long recognized that it is in our national security interest to close Guantanamo. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do, it is the morally responsible thing to do, and, above all, it will actually make our country safer. For over a decade, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo has contradicted our most basic principles of justice, degraded our international standing, and harmed our national security. It is shameful we are still debating this issue. The status quo is unacceptable. Close Guantanamo. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I once again express my strong support for the efforts of the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, and the chairwoman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, as they work to reach agreement with their counterparts in the House of Representatives to resolve the impasse over the fiscal year 2014 budget. Washington today is filled with naysayers. But as broken as the budget process is, and as pessimistic as many people are, I remain hopeful about the possibility of reaching a compromise that can bring us back to some semblance of the regular order everyone claims to want. If there ever were two Senators who could find a way through the morass, it is Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray. And they should know there are a great many of us, including some on the Republican side of the aisle, who are 100 percent behind them. I encourage all Senators to read David Rogers' piece in Tuesday's edition of POLITICO, entitled ``Barbara Mikulski's fight: Protecting appropriations''. It tells the story, and in doing so, it pays tribute to Senator Mikulski. I am not naive about the obstacles ahead, not the least of which is the shortness of time. We need a top line number from the budget conferees by the end of next week if we are to complete appropriations bills by January 15 when the current continuing resolution expires. There is no mystery about what needs to happen. There must be compromise by both sides on two key issues--increasing revenues and decreasing spending. There will not be agreement without both. But in the absence of agreement, the operations and programs of every Federal agency will be drastically reduced by the combined effects of sequestration and a full year continuing resolution. People will lose their jobs and programs will be cut deeply or terminated altogether. Infrastructure projects will be cancelled. The American people will pay the price in far more ways than any one of us can imagine. I want to mention a few examples of the effects that a full year continuing resolution, at the level the House proposes, will have in lost jobs and canceled infrastructure projects in this country. Under a full year continuing resolution, the National Science Foundation would receive $542 million less than the amount in the Senate bill. The funding included by the Senate would provide funding for 1,500 more competitive grants and support 17,000 scientists, technicians and students. Under a CR, those jobs and that research would not be possible. The $500 million included in the Senate bill to fix thousands of deteriorating and aging bridges around the country would disappear. Under a CR, the Federal Aviation Administration would not receive the $559 million in the Senate bill to hire air traffic controllers needed to keep the skies safe. Instead, the FAA would be faced with having to impose a hiring freeze and furlough air traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors. Funding for agricultural research would receive nearly $242 million less than the levels included in the Senate bill and America's standing as the world leader in food production could be in jeopardy, because we simply won't be able to compete with the $4.5 billion China spends on agricultural research annually. The EPA's funding for clean and safe drinking water would face significant cuts, putting Americans' access to clean water at risk. It would also mean 6,500 fewer American jobs. These are just a few examples of how another long term continuing resolution will neglect the infrastructure needs of our Nation and prevent the creation of thousands of jobs. I hope the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that put an end to the needless shutdown will enable the budget conferees to reach agreement on a top line funding level so Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mikulski and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers can help us get back to work and pass the bills needed to fund these essential services. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Rogers' article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it was not very long ago that it seemed as if the ivory trade was on the decline and that the survival of African elephants in the wild was assured. In recent years, we have seen that confidence shattered, as thousands of these magnificent animals have been systematically killed for their tusks. Similarly, the rhinoceros, already endangered, is now in great jeopardy due to the voracious appetite in China and elsewhere in Asia for concoctions manufactured from their horn which can fetch thousands of dollars per ounce. Large-scale poaching of these and other wildlife species has become endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. It is estimated that up to 17,000 African elephants have been killed for their tusks since 2011, and just last month poachers used cyanide to poison 300 elephants in Zimbabwe. It was only a couple of years ago that we saw the extinction of the western black rhinoceros, another victim of rampant poaching. This devastating slaughter should serve as a deafening wake-up call to the world. It has implications that extend far beyond wildlife conservation. The international ban on ivory sales enacted in 1989 had a positive, albeit temporary impact on the protection of elephant and rhinoceros populations, but it has since spawned a black market industry in wildlife and wildlife parts. As I mentioned, some of the market is in carved ivory products and potions prized in Asia for their supposed medicinal or other properties. But this illicit revenue is increasingly being used to fund violent extremist groups in the subcontinent. The profits from this trade fuels trafficking in weapons, drugs, and humans, as well as terrorism in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and beyond. Vermonters take pride in being well informed about international affairs, as well as on the impact that we as individuals have on the world we live in. The people of my State know that many of the products we buy, services we support, and actions we take have global implications, positive and negative. That is why it was no surprise when more than 300 people gathered last month in the University of Vermont's Ira Allen Chapel to view the National Geographic documentary ``Battle for the Elephants'' and discuss the grave threat that poaching poses to the world's elephant population. The consensus was that while the outlook is ominous, the fact that people are increasingly focused on this crisis is reason for hope that these animals can be saved. Vermont's own Laurel Neme, a renowned environment and wildlife policy expert, noted that technological advancements, especially in regards to tracing the origins of illegal ivory, have made encouraging strides. The United States has moral as well as strategic interests in combatting trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products. As I have mentioned, it is not only decimating elephant and rhinoceros populations it is also funding traffickers and terrorist groups. For these reasons, the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, of which I am chairman, included $45 million for fiscal year 2014 to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking, including by training and supporting African park rangers and other law enforcement officials. The Obama administration has also recognized the need to address this crisis more forcefully and is allocating additional resources. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the African countries to protect and conserve their wildlife populations. But they cannot do it alone. It is imperative that we work with them and other donor governments and organizations to martial the resources to combat the black market trade in wildlife.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since the early 1980s, Congress has provided legislative authority for Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices, their employees, and guests when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. That authority is set to expire at the end of next month and merits extension. The House voted by an overwhelming majority of 399 to 3 to pass a bipartisan bill which would extend this authority through 2019. All Democrats have cleared this bill for passage. I urge the minority to do the same so the Senate may swiftly pass this extension to ensure the continued safety of our Supreme Court Justices and their employees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend President Obama for renominating Judge Patricia M. Wald to serve as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, ``PCLOB''. The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Wald to this post on August 2, 2012. The President renominated Judge Wald to this position in March, and the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination without objection months ago. During her tenure on this important oversight board, Judge Wald has served with great professionalism and dedication. And next week, she will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that the President can bestow. For the past several months, we have been engaged in a national debate about the ever-growing need for limits on the government's surveillance powers. In the coming weeks, the House and the Senate will consider bipartisan legislation to rein in those expansive powers in an effort to protect Americans' privacy and to increase transparency and oversight. While I look forward to that debate and consideration of this important legislation, it is urgent that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board continue to operate at full strength to safeguard our constitutional rights. The PCLOB has held two all day hearings on these surveillance matters in recent months, and plans to issue an important report to the President and Congress. Judge Wald has been a key participant in these proceedings. Should the Senate fail to confirm her nomination before we adjourn, however, Judge Wald would be forced to step down from the PCLOB at a critical time when the board is conducting its work to evaluate the privacy and civil liberties implications of the Nation's surveillance programs. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike have supported the important work of this nonpartisan board. Unfortunately, a secret objection on the Republican side is needlessly delaying Judge Wald's confirmation. I urge the Senate to promptly confirm this well qualified nominee, so that the PCLOB can carry out its important responsibilities. If a single Republican Senator has a concern about Judge Patricia Wald's impeccable credentials, they should come forward with the reason they are holding up her confirmation.