Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this month, we commemorate Native American Heritage Month. It is an important opportunity to recognize the exceptional achievements and contributions of those in the Native American community. They are an integral part of this country's history, which has been both proud and painful. It is important to stop and reflect on how we as a nation can learn from the past and plan for our shared future as fellow Americans. It is fitting that in this month we also celebrate Veterans Day. For over 200 years, Native Americans, including American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, have served honorably and with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces. Native Americans have served in every conflict since the Revolutionary War and contribute in disproportionately high numbers to our Nation's defense. No group of Americans has a higher per capita service rate in the military than Native Americans. One of the most unique and extraordinary contributions was by the ``Code Talkers'' during both world wars. Using codes based on their distinct languages, these Native American soldiers transmitted orders and communications to troops and allies, which were indecipherable to our enemies. Later this month, 33 tribes will be recognized with Congressional Gold Medals to celebrate this significant contribution during the Second World War. This recognition is both historic and overdue. Throughout the military history of the United States, Native Americans have served bravely and honorably. We are grateful to these soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen for their tradition of unwavering patriotism. As we celebrate Native American contributions to our country, we must also examine the unique struggles faced by these communities and work together to find solutions. I am proud of the significant steps we took earlier this year to confront the long-ignored epidemic of violence against Native women through reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill I authored with Senator Crapo. Nearly three out of five Indian women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. On some reservations, Native American women are murdered at a rate more than times the national average. Those statistics are chilling. Native women are being brutalized and killed at rates that simply shock the conscience. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 2013 addresses this problem directly and provides landmark protections for Native American women. These include expanding the jurisdiction of tribal courts in several ways. First, the law clarifies that tribal courts have the authority to issue and enforce tribal protection orders, a tool that is necessary to stop the escalation of violence. Second, and perhaps most importantly, it recognizes the jurisdiction of tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians who abuse Native women on tribal lands. More than 50 percent of Native American women are married to non- Native American men. Before the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized this year, tribal courts were unable to prosecute these men if they committed acts of domestic abuse. The Federal authorities who had jurisdiction were often hours away from tribal lands and ill- equipped to prosecute these crimes. As a result, countless victims were left without protection and offenders were allowed to prey upon women with impunity. As a former prosecutor, I was appalled, and I am proud that we fixed this glaring problem with the enactment of these historic changes. Beyond resolving jurisdictional issues, VAWA improved the grant making process to Indian tribal coalitions to ensure tribes are better able to respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. It creates new Federal crimes with tougher penalties for offenses often committed against Native American women and encourages greater cooperation between the Federal Government and tribal governments. The success of VAWA, and the inclusion of these historic provisions, was the result of years of careful investigation and creative problem solving. We worked closely with tribal leaders and the National Congress of American Indians and in close consultation with the Indian Affairs Committee. I would like to thank the former chairman of that committee, Senator Daniel Akaka, and current chairwoman Maria Cantwell for their cooperation and persistence on these important measures. Another area of law critical to the protection of civil rights for Native Americans is the Voting Rights Act. I am working hard with members from both sides of the aisle to restore the vital protections of this landmark law, undermined by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Voting Rights Act is the most successful piece of civil rights legislation in this Nation's history. It has worked to protect the Constitution's guarantees against racial discrimination in voting for nearly five decades. It has helped minorities of all races--including Native Americans--overcome major barriers to participation in the political process. For example, in 2008, in Charles Mix County, SD, the Department of Justice found evidence of discriminatory intent by the officials of the county, who had attempted to dilute the voting strength of Native Americans. The Voting Rights Act prevented these discriminatory actions from taking place. It is imperative that we reinvigorate and restore these protections. In addition to our legislative efforts, we are also making strides in confirming Native American judges to our Federal courts. President Obama nominated Diane J. Humetewa, a Native American woman, to serve on the U.S. district court for Arizona on September 19, 2013. Humetewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe, was the U.S. attorney in Arizona between 2007 and 2009, a position to which she was nominated by former President George W. Bush at the urging of Senator John McCain. If the Senate confirms her nomination, she would become the only active member of a Native American tribe to serve in the Federal judiciary and the first Native American woman ever to serve on the Federal bench. This month, let us celebrate the Native American contributions that make this Nation better and stronger. And let us renew our commitment to work together with leaders of these sovereign nations to address ongoing challenges to ensure that all who live in this great country are afforded the respect, dignity and opportunities they deserve.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Chance Reauthorization Act, a bill that builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. Investing in community-based reentry programs prevents crime, reduces prison costs, improves public safety, and saves taxpayer dollars. It is also the right thing to do. This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and funds collaborations between State and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that former offenders have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. Our bill also seeks to expand upon the successes of the original Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs, while reauthorizing these important grant programs at reduced levels in recognition of current fiscal constraints. In 2008, I joined with Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and helped to shepherd that legislation through the Senate. I was proud when the Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act and, after a great deal of work and compromise, passed the bill unanimously. The bipartisan spirit of this legislation also continues in the House, where today Representatives Sensenbrenner and Davis will introduce an identical version of the Senate bill authored by myself and Senator Portman. Together, we have been working hard for the past several months to reach an agreement that is fair, fiscally responsible, and meets the needs of key stakeholders. As a result, we have the support of faith groups, law enforcement, and community groups who provide services to the mentally ill and those struggling with addiction. This broad coalition has one thing in common--we all want to see our justice system work better. In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating longer sentences for more and more crimes. As a result, our country currently incarcerates more than two million people, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. This has resulted in severely stretched budgets and we have fewer resources for programs that actually prevent crime in the first place. We cannot afford to stay on our current path, and I am working on separate legislation to address the exploding costs of our Federal prisons. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act helps support innovative reentry programs at the state and local level which have brought down costs and reduced recidivism, and the federal system should replicate these efforts. More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison each year. The experience inmates have in prison, how we prepare them to rejoin society, and how we integrate them into the broader community when they are released are issues that profoundly affect the communities in which we live. The Second Chance Act funds grants for key reentry programs and requires that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. The Second Chance Act of 2008 authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. Today's reauthorization bill directs the Attorney General to review that research, identify best practices, and implement them in our prisons and jails. The bill also makes nonprofit organizations eligible for grants promoting family-based substance abuse treatment and training in technology careers. It gives priority consideration to applicants that conduct individualized post-release employment planning, demonstrate connections to employers within the local community, or track and monitor employment outcomes. This legislation also makes improvements to federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non-Violent Offenders Pilot Program and expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that federal dollars are spent responsibly. Grantees who have unresolved audit problems will not be eligible for funding in future years. As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act helps break this cycle. I thank Senator Portman, Representative Sensenbrenner, and Representative Davis for their hard work and cooperation in leading these efforts. We have come together in a truly exceptional way in this bipartisan, bicameral effort. I am proud of the work we have done so far and I look forward to joining with Democrats and Republicans to get this bill passed and signed into law. Mr. President, President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Chance Reauthorization Act, a bill that builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. Investing in community-based reentry programs prevents crime, reduces prison costs, improves public safety, and saves taxpayer dollars. It is also the right thing to do. This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and funds collaborations between State and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that former offenders have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. Our bill also seeks to expand upon the successes of the original Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs, while reauthorizing these important grant programs at reduced levels in recognition of current fiscal constraints. In 2008, I joined with Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and helped to shepherd that legislation through the Senate. I was proud when the Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act and, after a great deal of work and compromise, passed the bill unanimously. The bipartisan spirit of this legislation also continues in the House, where today Representatives Sensenbrenner and Davis will introduce an identical version of the Senate bill authored by myself and Senator Portman. Together, we have been working hard for the past several months to reach an agreement that is fair, fiscally responsible, and meets the needs of key stakeholders. As a result, we have the support of faith groups, law enforcement, and community groups who provide services to the mentally ill and those struggling with addiction. This broad coalition has one thing in common--we all want to see our justice system work better. In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating longer sentences for more and more crimes. As a result, our country currently incarcerates more than two million people, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. This has resulted in severely stretched budgets and we have fewer resources for programs that actually prevent crime in the first place. We cannot afford to stay on our current path, and I am working on separate legislation to address the exploding costs of our Federal prisons. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act helps support innovative reentry programs at the state and local level which have brought down costs and reduced recidivism, and the federal system should replicate these efforts. More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison each year. The experience inmates have in prison, how we prepare them to rejoin society, and how we integrate them into the broader community when they are released are issues that profoundly affect the communities in which we live. The Second Chance Act funds grants for key reentry programs and requires that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. The Second Chance Act of 2008 authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. Today's reauthorization bill directs the Attorney General to review that research, identify best practices, and implement them in our prisons and jails. The bill also makes nonprofit organizations eligible for grants promoting family-based substance abuse treatment and training in technology careers. It gives priority consideration to applicants that conduct individualized post-release employment planning, demonstrate connections to employers within the local community, or track and monitor employment outcomes. This legislation also makes improvements to federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non-Violent Offenders Pilot Program and expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that federal dollars are spent responsibly. Grantees who have unresolved audit problems will not be eligible for funding in future years. As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act helps break this cycle. I thank Senator Portman, Representative Sensenbrenner, and Representative Davis for their hard work and cooperation in leading these efforts. We have come together in a truly exceptional way in this bipartisan, bicameral effort. I am proud of the work we have done so far and I look forward to joining with Democrats and Republicans to get this bill passed and signed into law. Mr. President, President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has a historic opportunity today to take discrimination out of the workplace by casting a vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Today's vote has been 20 years in the making, and it is long overdue for Congress to extend these protections to all American workers. Years from now we will look back on this remedy as another substantial milestone on our Nation's everlasting quest to achieve a more perfect union--a quest to realize more completely the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building that declares: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We now have protections for workers from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin and disability, as we should. Yet there are no Federal protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In 29 States, it is still legal for an employer to fire employees based on their sexual orientation, and in 33 States employees can be fired based on their gender identity. Maintaining the status quo would keep in place a system that supports a second class of workers in a majority of States. This runs counter to our founding values. It is time to remedy that. As the son of Vermont printers, I learned at an early age the primary importance of the First Amendment. The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our democracy and our way of life. It is one of the most defining principles of our national character. It helps preserve all of our other rights. By guaranteeing a free press and the free exercise of religion, it ensures an informed electorate and the freedom to worship God and to practice our religion as we choose--or to practice no religion at all. Religious freedom does not end with the vital protections afforded by the First Amendment. The bill before us contains important protections for religious organizations by ensuring that they can continue to make significant faith-based employment decisions. The carefully crafted religious exemption in this legislation is consistent with the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. All Americans deserve civil rights protections under our Constitution, which, in addition to the First Amendment, also ensures due process and equal protection. In previous legislative debates like the one before us today, Congress has protected and bolstered these rights by passing legislation to fill gaps in our Federal laws. This includes passing legislation to protect the practice of religion without discrimination, to prevent pay discrimination based on sex, and to serve openly in the military. By passing the remedy before us today, we will take another significant step forward in taking discrimination out of our laws and ensuring the equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. I thank Chairman Harkin and Senators Merkley and Collins for their leadership on this significant, overdue, and bipartisan antidiscrimination remedy. I also am mindful and appreciative of the leading role that Senator Jim Jeffords of my State of Vermont took in advancing this remedy during his time in this body. And I thank Majority Leader Reid for making this a priority for the Senate. I know that my late friend Senator Kennedy is smiling down on this chamber today as we advance his efforts to end employment discrimination. Today we can honor his legacy with this historic vote.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the budget conferees are working to reach agreement on the fiscal 2014 budget, and I compliment Senator Murray for the great work she has done. I want to join those who have expressed strong support for their efforts. We all know what the consequences will be if they do not reach agreement on a budget. We will have draconian cuts to defense acquisitions and readiness, to social safety net programs, to infrastructure, to public schools, and to police. Every Federal program is going to suffer, and every American in my State and in the other 49 States, will feel the impact. Having been in the Senate a long time, I know that anything that gets done around here happens as a result of compromise. Nobody gets everything he or she wants. When it comes to a budget agreement, it means you have to have additional savings, but you also need increased revenues. There is no other way. You have to do both. I think back to the time when we not only had balanced budgets, but we also had a surplus; in the last Democratic administration, for example. We did not have these kinds of specialized tax cuts to those in the highest bracket. Ironically, those in the highest bracket made more money during that time because the whole economy was better. Those who think it can be done by only cutting spending, or by only closing corporate tax loopholes, but not by doing both together, are legislators in name only. That is simply a recipe for continued gridlock and another year of sequestration, which would be a disaster. It would allow everybody to go off and give rhetoric but not face reality. They could talk about what they want, but never have to vote on anything. The fact is that if you want to do this, you have to cast some tough votes. The outcome of this budget conference will determine the extent to which the Congress will play a meaningful role in Federal spending for the rest of this administration, and possibly well beyond. I would advise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I have been here with both Republican and Democratic administrations. If the Congress is going to actually have a voice as an independent third branch of government in how the government is run and what we do, then we have to start facing up and doing real budgets and real appropriations bills; otherwise, just assume there is a top dollar level in there and the administration will do whatever it wants to do, Democratic or Republican. That is not what I believe I was elected to do. As one of 100 Senators, I should have a voice in what comes out of it. As I said, the outcome of this budget conference will determine the extent to which the Congress can play a meaningful role in Federal spending not only for the rest of this administration but possibly well beyond, but there is no better way to illustrate what is at stake than to use concrete examples. I want to do that by comparing the impact of the fiscal year 2014 House and Senate versions of the bill that funds the Department of State and foreign operations. The choices are stark, and it puts things in perspective. The House bill provides $40 billion to fund the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and our contributions to the World Bank, U.N. peacekeeping, and countless other organizations and programs that contribute to global security. In contrast, the Senate bill would provide $50 billion, 25 percent more than the House bill, for these same agencies and programs. But, lest anyone falsely accuse think the Senate of being big spenders, actually the Senate bill responds to the current budget climate--it is $500 million below the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution after sequestration and across-the-board reductions, and includes many budget reductions and savings. Unlike the House bill, however, we are selective in how we do it. The Senate bill does not make draconian and reckless cuts that would weaken U.S. influence and cede U.S. leadership to our competitors. Given the situations in Syria, North Africa, and other areas of conflict--areas of conflict that could evolve and engulf the United States at a moment's notice--as well as the unpredictability of natural disasters, funding for international crisis response and humanitarian relief is a matter of life and death for millions of the world's most vulnerable people who look to the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. The current demand for these programs--and certainly my mail shows they are strongly supported by the American people--is unprecedented and growing. Yet the House bill cuts these programs $1.6 billion below the Senate bill, and far below the fiscal year 2013 level. One of the most troubling cuts in the House bill is for international organizations in which the United States plays a major role in addressing global threats to us and our allies--such as transnational crime, disease epidemics, and climate change--that no country can solve alone. Some of the most feared and most deadly diseases in the world today are not on our shores, but can be on our shores from other parts of the world in a matter of hours. Aside from a total humanitarian reason, we have a good reason to do something to help combat those diseases. The House would end our support entirely for many of these organizations, create large arrears of money we are obligated by treaty to pay, and erode our influence with other major contributors and shareholders like the Europeans, China, India, and Brazil. They are saying: OK, we agreed to pay this, but, sorry, we are the United States and we don't have to keep our word. I don't think most Americans want to hear that. Ask any of our international corporations, ask any of our organizations in this country--medical facilities or anything else that has to work around the world--if they really want the United States to give up its influence. The House bill provides no funding--not one single dollar--for U.S. voluntary contributions to the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Program, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, or the Montreal Protocol, which protects the ozone layer. The Senate bill includes $355 million for this account, which is about the same level as five years ago. I would like more, but I don't want to go to the House level, which is nothing. So while the House would end our participation in UNICEF and many other U.N. agencies, the Senate bill freezes spending for these organizations at the 2009 level. The House bill provides $746 million, which is nearly 50 percent less than the Senate bill, for assessed contributions--these are contributions we are required to pay--to international organizations such as NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and many others. What we are saying is that if some disease breaks out in the world and comes across our borders, well, gosh, that would be terrible, but we can't give any money to the World Health Organization to try to stop it. What if there is a question of nuclear proliferation? Sorry, we can't give the money we are required to give to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Senate bill is $72 million below the fiscal year 2009 level, and the House bill is $783 million below the fiscal year 2009 level. Does anybody actually believe that the needs of NATO or the International Atomic Energy Agency or the World Health Organization are less today than they were five years ago? All you have to do is watch the news. All you have to do is read some of the reports, some of the intelligence briefs every Senator can read, and you are not going to say: Well, the threat is less today than it was five years ago. You are going to say, as I do, as I read these reports: The threat is a great deal worse than it was five years ago. It defies logic, and it is dangerous. It is dangerous not to be involved in these organizations. In fact, the House bill provides no funding not one dollar--for most of the international financial institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, or the International Fund for Agricultural Development. This would put us hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears, forfeiting our leadership in those institutions. So they can say to us: OK, debtor nation--OK, United States--you agreed to these, but you are not paying your bill. We can't trust the United States, so we are not going to let you have any say in this. We are not going to let you have the leadership you have had in these institutions. In fact, the House bill provides not even one dollar for the key multilateral environmental funds that support clean energy technology and protect forests and water resources, including the Global Environment Facility, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic Climate Fund. It is bad enough that here in the Senate we have frozen these agencies at last year's level, but at least we have some money for them. The House has nothing. They do not provide a single dollar for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. The Senate bill provides $135 million for this program--the same level as last year's continuing resolution--to help the poorest countries prevent chronic malnutrition and famine. Mr. President, we all ask: Why can't we have countries developed so that they are not open to some of these terrorist organizations or fundamentalist organizations that step in? Well, we have a stake in helping them. It doesn't require much money; a tiny fraction--1 percent of our budget. To just walk away from them makes no sense from our strategic interest, but more than that, what does it say about our moral interest as the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth? We have to speak to what is the moral value of the United States. Frankly, what they have done in the other body does not speak well to our moral core--not the moral core of the America I know in my State from both Republicans and Democrats alike. We all understand the need for Federal departments and agencies to reduce costs and eliminate waste and find efficiencies. We do this. The Senate bill is $500 million below the fiscal 2013 continuing resolution. But what we try to do is to say that at least the United States has to keep its word. At least the United States ought to show involvement in parts of the world where it counts. Unfortunately, the House bill may make great sound bites, nice bumper-sticker politics, but it endangers the United States, endangers our security, and it gives the image that the United States is a country that cannot keep its word. We can't do that. It will end up costing taxpayers more in the long run and cause lasting damage to the country. Let's move forward, get our budget resolution, and pass our appropriations bills, because right now everybody gets to vote maybe. Nobody has to vote yes or no. I have been here long enough to know that the people of my State expect me to vote yes or no, not maybe. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that an amendment was negotiated to clarify the exemption provided to religious organizations in this legislation. This is Senate amendment No. 2012. I understand that the intent of the antiretaliation provision in the legislation is to strike a balance between providing important protections for religious organizations because of their exemption under section 6(a) of pending legislation and to ensure that this provision does not undermine in any way current or future Federal, State, or local civil rights protections, such as those protections afforded under the laws of my home State of Vermont. The language of the antiretaliation provision states clearly that nothing in the provision can be construed ``to invalidate any other federal, state, or local law or regulation that otherwise applies to an employer'' that is found exempt under section 6(a) of ENDA. As I understand it, this means that an exemption for a religious organization under ENDA does not equate to exemption from compliance with any other Federal, State, or local civil rights requirements. In addition, this provision bars retaliation against a religious organization on the sole basis that the organization is exempt under ENDA. Application of Federal, State, or local civil rights protections to a religious organization exempt under Section 6(a) of ENDA may only be considered retaliation under Section 6(b) if the religious organization demonstrates that the application--through monitoring, enforcement or other means--is solely due to the religious organization's exempt status under ENDA. Based on this understanding, I would like to ask Chairman Harkin if anything in that amendment would modify the important nondiscrimination provision in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that this Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this year. That provision was a critical component of the reauthorization, and I want to make sure that nothing here overrides what is currently the law of the land. I also want to make sure that States like Vermont can still enforce their own nondiscrimination laws for violations within their jurisdiction, regardless of whether an entity is exempt under the national ENDA legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at a watershed moment in the history of intelligence oversight, like nothing I have seen since the Church Committee. Some of the recent revelations have led to important national conversations about the scope of our Nation's intelligence gathering powers here at home, and to renewed legislative efforts to recalibrate those authorities and the related oversight regimes. The USA FREEDOM Act that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner and I introduced last week along with more than 100 members of Congress does just that. It is important, however, to acknowledge that some of the leaks have led to needless risk to our national security and have threatened our relationships with some of our most important international partners. And all of this leads back to a 29-year-old contractor named Edward Snowden. Let me make clear once more that I do not condone the way any of these highly classified programs were disclosed. I am deeply concerned about the potential damage to our intelligence gathering capabilities, foreign relationships, and national security. I am also deeply concerned that one person could wreak this much havoc in such a short period of time. Especially in the wake of the Private Manning leaks, I do not understand how the National Security Agency could have allowed this to happen. This past weekend, Colbert King wrote in the Washington Post that this damage was, in a sense, self-inflicted. I ask unanimous consent that the King op-ed be printed in the Record. As Mr. King put it, ``I want to know how Snowden got his hands on so much of the nation's most sensitive intelligence and was able to flee the country, all within three months.'' I want to know too. We need to hold people accountable for allowing such a massive leak to occur and we need to change the way we do business to ensure that we prevent this type of breach in the future. In public and in private, I have continued to ask the leaders of the intelligence community to tell me who is being held accountable and what is being done to prevent this from happening again. Without adequate answers to these questions, the American people are rightly concerned that their private information could be swept up into a massive database, and then compromised. The NSA has acknowledged that it is collecting U.S. phone records on an unprecedented scale, and that it is also collecting massive amounts of Internet content against targets abroad, which also includes some communications of law-abiding Americans. And yet the government asks us to trust that it will keep this information safe, and that we should have faith in its internal policies and procedures. This plea comes from the same intelligence community that the FISA court found to have made substantial misrepresentations about the scope of its collection; and the same intelligence community that allowed Edward Snowden to steal such vast amounts of information. And it comes from the same intelligence community whose inspector general just wrote to tell me that he is unable at this time to conduct a communitywide review of government activities conducted under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I ask unanimous consent that the September 23, 2013, letter from a bipartisan group of Senate Judiciary Committee members to the inspector general of the intelligence community be printed in the Record, as well as his November 5, 2013, response. The intelligence community faces a trust deficit, and I am particularly concerned that the NSA has strayed and overreached beyond its core missions. One important step toward rebuilding that trust would be for the NSA to spend less of its time collecting data on innocent Americans, and more on keeping our Nation's secrets safe and holding its own accountable. The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its work on these issues in the next few weeks. On November 13, the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law will hold a hearing on Senator Franken's Surveillance Transparency Act, which I have cosponsored. And on November 20, I have invited back to the committee Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander, and Deputy Attorney General James Cole for another hearing to review the intelligence community's surveillance authorities. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2013] Latest NSA Spying Revelations Distract From the Real Issues (By Colbert I. King) What's this about governments spying on their closest allies? We called it ``the bubble.'' It was a 12-by-15-foot acoustic conference room made of clear plastic and aluminum. There were at least five inches of space between the walls of the bubble and the walls of the room in which it was located. The bubble's plastic walls, ceiling and floor allowed visual inspection for electronic listening devices, or ``bugs.'' As an extra security measure, a noise-generating machine was installed in the outer room to prevent interception of any discussions of classified information within the bubble. The outer room was secured by a combination lock, the code known only to my office. The first U.S. ``bubble'' was installed after hidden microphones were found in American diplomatic missions in Moscow, Prague and elsewhere in the 1960s. Our bubble, within a room on an upper floor of the U. S. Embassy in Bad Godesberg, West Germany, was a countermeasure against possible technical penetration by the Soviet KGB and the East German Stasi. But Eastern Bloc countries weren't the only concern. Our bubble allowed classified discussions to occur beyond the hearing of our host and ally, the-then Federal Republic of Germany, and our friends down the road in the French and British embassies. That was nearly 50 years ago. This year, in my current capacity, I was sitting in the office of an ambassador in Washington when a member of his staff alerted him to an important call. There was a phone on the ambassador's desk. But he left the room to take the call. It turns out that his prime minister was calling from overseas. The ambassador went to a secure location in the embassy where he could conduct a confidential conversation. True, he was in the capital city of his nation's closest ally. But the matter to be discussed was for the ears of his countrymen only, U. S. friendship notwithstanding. Today, as the United States has been doing for decades, close allies in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere take similar precautions even when their missions are in friendly countries. Gentlemen may know that it is bad form to read each other's mail or to eavesdrop. But in diplomacy and national security, the desire to know what another country is up to tends to overwhelm any sense of rectitude. Consequently, the European outrage over snooping among friends may be slightly overdone. That is an entirely separate matter from the National Security Agency's (NSA) vacuum-cleanerlike collection of the communication records and metadata of millions of Americans, including private citizens and, apparently, foreign citizens both here and overseas. The scope of that intelligence-collection program, disputed by Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, this week is the cause of uproar around the country and in Congress. There is still much to sort out and probably reform. The monitoring of foreign leaders' phone calls, however, is closer to the larger deed of spying on allied governments. Which takes us to an indelicate question: Why is a foreign leader, a repository of a nation's secrets, communicating by text messages and smartphone? The most junior Foreign Service officer or government civil servant entrusted with sensitive information assumes that e- mails and cellphones are susceptible to eavesdropping. What makes a head of state behave as if he or she is immune from monitoring? Which brings up another tactless question: Why haven't the security services of those foreign leaders developed countermeasures to prevent successful spying on personal communications? The danger here isn't simply that the NSA may have overstepped its bounds with respect to U.S. allies. The intelligence services of the foes of Germany, France, Spain, Brazil and the like may have the capacity to listen in on high-level conversations. The naivete of outraged foreign leaders and their vulnerability to spying are nearly--but not totally--as surprising as the scale of NSA snooping. The NSA revelations, meanwhile, should not draw attention away from the revelations' primary source: Edward Joseph Snowden. How in the world is it possible that a high school dropout with a GED, a community college student who didn't graduate, a failed Army recruit and security guard can catapult himself into a CIA information technology job, an overseas posting and subsequently a $200,000-a-year job with a company contracted to do NSA work in Hawaii, where he was able to gain access to the crown jewels of America's secrets? Whistleblower, traitor, patriot: Debate the labels all you want. The government has charged him with espionage. Take it up with Attorney General Eric Holder. I want to know how Snowden got his hands on so much of the nation's most sensitive intelligence and was able to flee the country, all within three months. Damage? Done by the U.S. government to itself.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate passed yesterday bipartisan legislation that will improve the enforcement of the antitrust laws. The bipartisan Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act extends whistleblower protections to employees who report criminal violations of the antitrust laws. These kinds of violations, which include price fixing, have a particularly pernicious impact on consumers. This legislation represents a continuation of my partnership with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues. Senator Grassley has long been an advocate for protecting those who blow the whistle on wasteful or criminal conduct. Our bill is modeled on whistleblower protections that he and I authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act does not provide employees with an economic incentive to report violations. The legislation simply makes whole employees who have been fired or discriminated against for blowing the whistle on criminal conduct. Whistleblower protection was recommended by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a 2011 report to Congress. The GAO surveyed an array of stakeholders and found widespread support for the kind of basic protections contained in this legislation. The bill allows employees who have reported a criminal violation to file an action with the Department of Labor if they have been fired or otherwise discriminated against for disclosing the violation. While the remedies provided by the bill are limited, they are crucial in protecting employees from retaliation. The antitrust laws exist to promote a free and open marketplace and serve to protect consumers. These laws can only be effective if they are vigorously enforced. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act will aid in enforcement efforts and ensure that consumers are protected from harmful activity. I urge the House to act quickly to pass this important bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, during this time of budget constraints, sequestration, and continuing resolutions, it is crucial that every Federal department and agency identify maximum cost savings and improve efficiencies to minimize the impact of reductions on critical programs and personnel. It is also the responsibility of Congress to encourage departments and agencies to consistently identify and implement such savings and efficiencies. We do not have the luxury of allowing the continuation of programs that are no longer relevant, are redundant with other Federal programs, can be done more cheaply, or that perpetuate past mistakes. Unfortunately it seems that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are not able to identify some potential savings. It takes outside watchdogs such as the inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office to review and independently evaluate department or agency programs and operations. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department and USAID, I and ranking member Lindsey Graham have taken steps to avoid wasteful and unnecessary spending. We have reduced costs based on inspector general findings, directed the State Department to eliminate unnecessary overseas support staff and administrative expenses, and directed the Department and USAID to improve financial and contract management. We will continue to look for opportunities to reduce waste, terminate programs that are poorly designed or not meeting their goals, and save taxpayer dollars. But this is not enough. The State Department, USAID, and other Federal agencies need to act proactively to identify efficiencies and reduce costs. Unfortunately, some of the inspector generals' findings are so obvious it is surprising, and troubling, that the State Department or USAID did not identify the savings on their own. Here are just a few examples from fiscal year 2013 reports of the State Department and USAID inspectors general. The State Department inspector general found that the Department has a team based in Frankfurt, Germany, that travels to posts in the former Yugoslavia and the countries of the former Soviet Union to train local staff and provide administrative support to posts. This might have made sense in the early 1990s, but it makes no sense 24 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The inspector general determined that 80 percent of the Regional Information Management Center staff in Frankfurt does not need to be assigned overseas. Their work could be done in Washington, saving millions of dollars each year. According to the inspector general, an employee assigned overseas costs $232,000 more each year than an employee based in the United States. In Iraq, at one of our most oversized and expensive Embassies, the inspector general found that the Department hired and paid for 513 Baghdad security personnel when only 253 were actually used. The Department also paid $20.6 million for an unnecessary airport security program that added 84 personnel. The inspector general found that the Department had 955 expired grants with a total of $81.9 million in unspent funds. The inspector general also found that the Department had not closed out 1,421 expired grants each with a $0 balance, costing $97,069 each year in unnecessary administrative fees. The USAID inspector general found that USAID added five overseas food storage warehouses but had not determined whether delivery times of food prepositioned overseas justifies the additional cost when compared with prepositioning food domestically. In fact, a cost-benefit analysis conducted in response to a 2007 Government Accountability Office recommendation found that food prepositioned overseas is seven times more costly than food prepositioned domestically and recommended that USAID consider increasing the amount of domestic prepositioned food. USAID has now agreed to compare the timeliness and cost of prepositioning food overseas versus domestically. We cannot afford to make decisions that expand programs or increase costs without some evidence that there is a benefit worth the additional expense. The USAID inspector general found that in a 3-month period, September through November 2012, USAID paid $64,000 for more than 300 mobile devices that had not been used for at least 1 month during that time period and $48,000 for 267 devices that had not been used at all during those 3 months, and an average of 127 employees had excessive user charges of $118,000 which USAID could not verify had been reviewed and accepted. While these are relatively small amounts, they add up. And the list goes on. I know that the employees of the State Department and USAID are dedicated, hard-working people. Most Americans have little if any idea of what they do to protect the interests of the United States around the world. But it is because their work is so important that we cannot afford to waste the money they need to do their jobs. Top officials at the State Department and USAID must identify and eliminate outdated, redundant, and ineffective programs and unnecessary operating expenses. We cannot wait for the inspectors general to do their job for them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I won't go on so much on the numbers, but I did hear my friend say there is a question whether President Obama has been treated differently than President Bush. I would note that when President Bush nominated John Roberts for the ninth seat to the DC Circuit, he was confirmed by every single Republican and Democrat voting for him. Patricia Millett, with exactly the same credentials as he for the Ninth seat, was filibustered by the Republicans. Were they treated differently? Yes. That happened last week, so it is fresh in our memories. But I wish to talk about a different issue. Today, Senators are finally going to have a chance to cast their vote and put on the record where every Senator stands on the fundamental issue of fairness. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will help bring this great Nation one step closer to the goal of equal rights for all Americans. I have long believed that American workers should be evaluated based on how they perform, not on irrelevant considerations such as gender, race, gender identity, or sexual orientation, but on how they do the job. If they do the job, they ought to be praised for it. In these difficult economic times, ensuring equal protection in the workplace is even more critical. We have to do better. We shouldn't question if people should be treated the same in the workplace, but that is what has happened in parts of this country. Maintaining the status quo would keep in place a system that supports a second class of workers in a majority of States. This runs counter to the values on which America was founded. It has to end. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit workplace discrimination and make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, Federal law protects against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability--as it should. But it doesn't stop discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is long overdue for Congress to extend these protections to all American workers. I am a native of Vermont. I am proud to represent the State of Vermont, as I have for almost four decades, in this body. One reason I am proud to represent Vermont is our State has led the country on so many civil rights issues. Vermonters believe in individual rights, in fairness, and in equality. More than two decades ago, our State of Vermont added sexual orientation to the list of protected categories in its antidiscrimination employment law, and Vermont expanded its protections to include gender identity protection 6 years ago. Yet in 29 States, an employer can fire employees based on their sexual orientation, and in 33 States, they can be fired based on their gender identity. This is not right. I might also point out, Vermont has one of the lowest unemployment rates of any State in the country. Many employers have taken this issue into their own hands, making up for Congress's inaction by implementing important antidiscrimination policies. As of April of this year, 88 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had nondiscrimination policies that included sexual orientation, and 57 percent had policies including gender identity. I wish to mention two Vermont companies in particular, Fletcher Allen Health Care and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, for showing real leadership on this issue; they banned discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and sexual orientation. I also applaud companies such as IBM, Microsoft, General Electric, and Time Warner for doing the right thing. Two of these companies have a major presence in Vermont. These corporations know that treating all their employees equally is not only fair--it also makes good business sense. They know that. It is time that we in Congress know that too. Workplace discrimination hurts families, and the hatred that drives discrimination has no place in a nation continually striving to form a more perfect union. So I thank Chairman Harkin for making this bipartisan legislation a priority in his committee, and for conducting the groundwork in creating the record we need to ensure this important bill's passage. The bipartisan team of Senator Merkley and Senator Collins brought together Members by their thoughtfulness and tenacity. A dear friend of mine used to sit in the back, and was in the Senate when I came here. I learned so much from him. I am speaking of Ted Kennedy. I have to think he is looking down on this Chamber tonight as we try to pass legislation he worked so hard to craft in his final years in the Senate. I was happy to work on this civil rights legislation with him then and with his partner on this effort, a former Vermont Senator, Jim Jeffords. We honor their leadership tonight with this vote. I am encouraged States and employers are moving forward where we have not. But I believe ending discrimination must also be a priority for Congress. I look at the distinguished Presiding Officer, and I think of her predecessor--another dear friend of mine for nearly four decades-- and the discrimination he faced when he came out of the service, having lost an arm, and having received the Medal of Honor for this country, and was still told in some places in America that he couldn't walk into their establishment. I am sure each of us can think of times of discrimination of all sorts. Let's pass legislation that bans all discrimination in the workplace, whatever it is. Until we do that, we will fail to achieve the motto engraved in Vermont marble above the Supreme Court building that declares ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Let's make sure all Americans have the equal rights they deserve. I urge my fellow Senators to come together and support this important bipartisan bill without delay, and the other body to have the courage to stand up for America--standing up for all Americans, every single American--and vote for this legislation. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, is there time remaining?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual format.

Mr. LEAHY. Patricia Millett is unquestionably qualified to be the next judge on the DC Circuit. The Senate will soon vote to end debate on her nomination and I hope that the rank partisanship that shut down our Government earlier this month will not be on display again with this upcoming vote. I hope the moderates who prided themselves in finding a solution to the shutdown will agree that Ms. Millett is an extraordinary nominee who should not be filibustered. Over the last few weeks, I have heard those who want to filibuster Ms. Millett make some unfounded claims to justify their partisan agenda. First they asserted that the President is somehow packing the court by nominating judges to vacant seats. No student of history can honestly say that nominating candidates to existing vacancies is court-packing. Next, they claimed that because the last of President Bush's nominees to this court was not confirmed, Ms. Millett should be filibustered as payback. These partisans fail to note that by the time Peter Keisler was nominated, four of President Bush's nominees to the DC Circuit had been confirmed. Only one of President Obama's nominees to this court has been confirmed and another has been filibustered. Mr. Keisler was nominated to the 11th seat on the DC Circuit--and would have marked the fifth time a President Bush nominee was confirmed the court and the second time a Bush nominee was confirmed to be the 11th judge on the court. At that time, Democrats noted the hypocrisy of Republicans pushing to confirm a second judge to the 11th seat on the DC Circuit after they had blocked Merrick Garland's nomination in 1996 to be the 11th judge. Judge Garland's nomination was held up until another judge retired and he was confirmed to be the 10th judge on the court. Patricia Millett, however, is nominated to be the 9th judge. Those who are determined to filibuster this highly qualified nominee should at least get their facts straight. For all the discussion about the DC Circuit's caseload, you would think that it had the lowest caseload of any circuit court in the country. But you would be wrong. The circuit court with the lowest caseload is actually the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which as of June 30, 2013, has 1,341 total pending appeals and 134 pending appeals per active judge. In contrast, the DC Circuit has 1,479 total pending appeals and 185 pending appeals per active judge. Despite the lower caseload on the Tenth Circuit, the Senate has continued to confirm nominees to that court without any complaints from Republicans about the workload. Just this past year, we confirmed Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to be the ninth judge on the Tenth Circuit and Gregory Phillips of Wyoming to be the tenth judge on the Tenth Circuit. We also recently held a hearing for Carolyn McHugh of Utah to be the eleventh judge on the Circuit. And in the next few weeks, we will hold a hearing for Nancy Moritz of Kansas to be the twelfth judge on the Tenth Circuit. If Ms. McHugh and Ms. Moritz are both confirmed, the Tenth Circuit will be at full strength with 12 active judges. Again, in all the hearings and votes we have had for these Tenth Circuit nominees, I cannot recall a single instance where Republican senators questioned the need for judges on that court. Some have also cited the DC Circuit's six senior judges as a reason to filibuster Patricia Millett's nomination. Of course, the Tenth Circuit has 10 senior judges, and yet, we never hear this cited as a reason for not confirming nominees to existing vacancies in the Tenth Circuit. I hope the Senators from Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, and Kansas will hold Patricia Millett to the same standard that the circuit nominees from their home state were held to or which they expect to be held to. Today's Washington Post editorial calls for Patricia Millett to be confirmed and concludes that Republicans ``shouldn't insist on altering the size of a court only when it's a Democratic president's turn to pick judges or filibuster highly qualified nominees on that pretext.'' I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record. Patricia Millett is an outstanding nominee who deserves to be treated on her merits. No argument has been lodged against her that would rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. If the Republican caucus finds that despite her stellar legal reputation and commitment to her country that somehow a filibuster is warranted, I believe this body will need to consider anew whether a rules change should be in order. That is not a change that I want to see happen but if Republican Senators are going to hold nominations hostage without consideration of their individual merit, drastic measures may be warranted. I hope it does not come to that. I hope that the same Senators who stepped forward to broker compromise when Republicans shut down the Government, will decide here to put politics aside and vote on the merits of this exceptional nominee. I also hope the same Senators who have said judicial nominees should not be filibustered barring extraordinary circumstances will stay true to their word. Ten years ago John Roberts, President Bush's nominee received a voice vote by the Senate. Today President Obama's nominee to that same seat, Patricia Millett, is being filibustered. What has changed in 10 years? The caseload of that court under any measure has remained constant or gone up slightly in the past 10 years so that is just a partisan pretext. Let us treat this extraordinary nominee based on her qualifications. Patricia Millett has honorably served this Nation for so many years and we are better off for it. I urge my fellow Senators to vote for cloture. Do not filibuster this brilliant lawyer, this military spouse, this exceptional nominee.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 more minutes equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am sure the Senator is concerned about costs. Yet, the same Senators blocking Patricia Millett's confirmation were not concerned when an unnecessary shutdown of the government cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. I also note that under President Bush, there were 11 judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with a lower caseload. Now there are 8 judges with a higher caseload. The numbers are the numbers. President Obama is being treated differently than President Bush was. Patricia Millett is being treated differently than John Roberts was. It is not fair, it is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there is no justification for it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to retired BG Jonathan Farnham, who is retiring after having honorably served his community, State and country for 34 years in the Vermont National Guard. Jon was commissioned in 1981 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Vermont where he earned a Bachelor of Science in economics. Prior to receiving his commission, he served as an enlisted member of the 1st Battalion, 86th Field Artillery of the Vermont Army National Guard. From his first assignment with the 86th Field Artillery, to his role as Director of the Afghan National Security Forces Development Assistance Bureau, to his nearly 3 years as a civilian employee serving as the Vice Director of the Guard's Joint Staff, Jon has served under 6 Governors and 4 Adjutant Generals. As each of them undoubtedly would agree, his wealth of experience and knowledge has been invaluable to the State and Nation as he has risen through the ranks, serving at nearly every level of command in the Army Guard. He also served as a fellow in the office of Senator Jim Jeffords, and I have personally benefitted from Jon's legacy, having had the privilege of employing his daughter Lily in my Burlington office during the summer of 2010. Jon will be remembered for his keen sense of humor, dedication to duty, and deep love and appreciation for the State of Vermont. I am grateful that the Vermont National Guard was able to benefit from Jon's lifetime of service, and Marcelle and I send our best wishes to him in the retirement he has certainly earned.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are debating whether the Senate is going to be allowed to vote on the confirmation of Patricia Millett. She is nominated to fill the vacancy that our current Chief Justice John Roberts previously occupied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. If she is confirmed, as of course she should be, she will be only the sixth woman to serve on the DC Circuit in its more than 120-year history. She is an extraordinary nominee. She has impeccable credentials for this important appellate court. I, like so many others across this country, hope that her confirmation is not going to suffer from the partisanship and gridlock that consumed Congress earlier this month. Ms. Millett was born in Dexter, ME and now calls Virginia home, but growing up she lived in Kansas, Virginia, Ohio, and Illinois. She earned her undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her law degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. She served as a law clerk for Judge Thomas Tang on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix, AZ. Patricia Millett has had a brilliant legal career. She has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Until recently, she held the record for the most Supreme Court arguments by a woman attorney before the court. She has argued dozens of cases in the Federal courts of appeal. She has briefed numerous cases in the Supreme Court and also appellate courts across the Nation. Ms. Millett has extensive experience on issues that come before the D.C. Circuit. She served for 15 years in the U.S. Department of Justice in both Democratic and Republican administrations. She worked for 4 years on the appellate staff of the civil division. She argued cases in Federal and State appellate courts, including the successful constitutional defense of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the inclusion of ``In God We Trust'' on Federal currency. She spent over a decade in the Solicitor General's office. Her stellar reputation led a bipartisan group of seven former Solicitors General to praise her as ``unfailingly fairminded.'' In 2004, Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft awarded Ms. Millett the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for representing the interest of the United States before the Supreme Court. Since 2007, she has led the Supreme Court practice in the Washington, DC, office of Akin Gump. Her work in private practice spans commercial litigation, administrative law, constitutional matters, statutory construction, and even criminal appeals. She has represented Army reservists and business interests, including the Chamber of Commerce as well as civil rights plaintiffs. Ms. Millett is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. She has committed herself to pro bono work. She has done this throughout her career. She has also engaged in some very significant community service. 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. Twenty years after serving as a law clerk in Arizona, Patricia Millet will return next summer with her family for a mission trip with the White Mountain Apache tribe in Fort Apache, AZ. It is interesting that in a press conference I held yesterday when we had spouses of people in the military, we talked about another aspect of her career. Her husband is now a retired Navy reservist, but as a military spouse when he was called up, Ms. Millett has a personal understanding of the sacrifice we ask of our servicemembers and their families. At the very height of her legal career, her husband was called on to deploy as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Of course he left, as those who are called to serve do, but she was left at home with two young children. And what did she do? She did what spouses all over this country do. She filled the role of both parents at home while her husband served in the Navy overseas. In fact, just the other day the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to honor families like Ms. Millett's family. We commemorate October 26 as the Day of the Deployed. Not only is she 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. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer is concerned about the Guard and Reserve in his State of Massachusetts as I am in my State of Vermont. Ms. Millet also knows the strains that they face. 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 coworkers who stayed at home didn't like his military absences. She stood up for every Guard member and every reservist in Vermont or Massachusetts or any other State in this country. The successful arguments Ms. Millett helped craft have made it easier for all members of our Reserve and National Guard to protect their right under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Through her legal work, she has earned broad bipartisan support. This includes the support of Peter Keisler, Carter Phillips, Kenneth Starr, Ted Olson, 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 both the national president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury; the Deputy Commissioner of the New York Police Department, Douglas Maynard; the President of the National Bar Association, John Page; and Andrea Carlise, the current President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations. Ms. Millet has the support of the military community including Major General Clark H. McNair, Jr., U.S. Army, Retired; Michael Hall, Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, Retired; Blue Star Families; and the Gallant Few. Based on Ms. Millett's advocacy in private practice, she has the support of former executive vice president at the Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, Robin Conrad, who declares that Ms. Millett is: a non-ideological, non-partisan, `lawyer's lawyer,' who has proven herself to be a trusted advisor to business with a practical appreciation of the challenges faced by businesses, large and small. She is open-minded, fair, even-tempered and superbly qualified to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit. In fact, the list is so long, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. If a President was to be given a textbook about the type of nominee to send to the Senate, or if Senators were given a textbook of the type of person to confirm, this would be the golden standard right here. We should not even be having this debate. She should have been confirmed unanimously weeks ago. She is the kind of nominee we should support because hers is a great American story of dedication, diligence, patriotism, and extraordinary professional ability. I hope nobody is going to get involved in partisan politics and choose to filibuster her nomination. She deserves to be confirmed. I understand that some Republicans have newfound concerns about the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit. During the Bush administration, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to fill four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit--giving the court a total of 11 judges in active service. Today there are only eight judges on the court. What has changed? It is not the caseload--that has remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. The only thing that has changed is the party of the President nominating judges to the court. Incidentally, a Republican President nominated a man named John Roberts to the seat Ms. Millett has now been nominated to. When his nomination came up for a vote on the Senate floor, as I recall, all Democrats and all Republicans supported him for that seat. While Democrats did not agree with him philosophically on all issues, we knew he was highly qualified, and he was confirmed. I don't think it is any stretch to say she is just as qualified. It is the same seat, but the only difference is it is a Democratic President who has nominated her. The standards should be the same. The same standards that allowed John Roberts to be confirmed to that seat with a Republican President are the same standards that should allow her to be confirmed to the seat with a Democratic President. She should be confirmed. I want to talk about the caseload. The caseload was 121 pending appeals per active judge when President Bush was in office. The Republican-controlled Senate had no problem in confirming the 11th judge to that court. Now, when the caseload is 185 pending appeals per active judge instead of 121 with a Democratic President, we are told: Gosh, we have to cut back. We have too many judges. It doesn't pass the giggle test. The fact is that this is what Republicans said. They voted for nominees to fill these 11 seats. Now, when three of those seats are vacant and we are trying to fill one--the same one John Roberts had-- some are saying maybe we have too many judges. Back then we had 121 appeals pending per active judge and now we have 185. No matter how we do it, the issue simply comes down to, is this nominee qualified? I have had the great privilege of serving in this body for almost 40 years. I have voted on thousands of judges nominated by both Republicans and Democrats. I voted to confirm the vast majority of them whether we had a Republican President or a Democratic President. Thinking back through all of those thousands of judges, I have a hard time finding even a handful who were as well qualified as this woman is or where there is as much of a need to have somebody in there. This is important. This is not only important on the merits--and on the merits it is an easy case--but there should be no delay based on politics. At a time when the American people are looking at the Congress and saying: What are you people doing--first the shutdown and then other things--we should not allow one more example that will bring the scorn of the American people toward this great body by saying no to somebody when every single person, no matter what their politics are and no matter what part of the country they are from, knows how qualified she is. I was thinking yesterday about when the group representing spouses in the military spoke about what she did to maintain her legal career but first and foremost to take care of her family while her husband was abroad and even then to do such things as help provide food to food kitchens for those less able and less fortunate. When we see a background such as this, we think it is too good to be true, but in this case it is all true. So let's confirm her.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.