Floor Statements

Mr. President, despite significant progress in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, this continues to be the second leading cause of cancer death for women, affecting one of every 8 women in the United States.

Women with dense breast tissue may receive a normal mammogram report even if cancer is present. Dense breast tissue makes it harder to catch cancer early because it can obscure cancer in the mammogram image. This is why, for some women, additional screening is so important in catching breast cancer early.

Despite this risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is no Federal standard for them to be told if they have dense tissue--even though this is already noted by the radiologist reading their mammogram.

This bill simply requires that women be informed if they have dense tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and to find out if they might benefit from additional screening. Early detection is the key to survival. Withholding this kind of information from women just doesn't make sense.

This bill sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research regarding dense breast tissue, and better screening tools. Early detection is the key to beating cancer and patients deserve access to information that might just save their life.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Ayotte and me in supporting the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This commonsense bill increases transparency in medicine by

improving patients' access to their own health information and is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Ronnie White to serve as a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

In the Senate, as in life, there rarely is a chance for a do-over--to get something right that went wrong a long time ago.

For me, Ronnie White's nomination is a chance to do that. This year should have been his fifteenth as a district court judge--he would be close to senior status today had his nomination by President Clinton been confirmed in 1999.

I was very pleased this year to see him appear once again before the Judiciary Committee, and I believe he will distinguish himself as a Federal district judge.

Let me simply quote from a letter from the Missouri State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, which wrote a letter on May 13, 2014 in support of Judge White's nomination:

As a former justice on the Missouri Court of Appeals and as

the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Ronnie White

has proven that he has the experience and requisite

attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S. District

Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy nominee.

Ronnie White's confirmation is long past due, and I really am pleased it is likely to come to pass. I just wanted to say that, and to urge my colleagues to support him.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Protect Women From Corporate Interference Act, and I praise Senator Murray and Senator Udall (of Colorado) for their work on this bill.

Let me first discuss the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell--a decision that in my view is deeply disappointing. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court found that large, closely-held, for-profit corporations have religious-freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Major corporations can now assert a religious objection to generally applicable federal law.

It is possible such corporations will not get most exemptions they seek. This will be examined on a case-by-case basis. But the point is the Court has opened the door to granting these sorts of exemptions to large, for-profit corporations.

This is a far-reaching result that Congress never intended when it enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As 18 other senators and I made clear to the Court in an amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case, Congress's purpose in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 was simple. Congress wanted to strengthen individuals' free-exercise protections, after a Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) limited those rights. But Congress never intended to grant new free-exercise protections to artificial, for-profit business corporations.

The Court's decision in Hobby Lobby went far beyond what Congress intended in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Federal law limited by Hobby Lobby was the Affordable Care Act's requirement that preventive health services including contraceptives are covered without cost-sharing in both individual and employer-provided health plans. Preventive health services include contraception because it is basic health care for women. This is an important benefit secured by federal law for all American women, 99 percent of whom have used contraception at some point in their lives. The medical community has almost unanimously recognized contraception as basic and essential health care. As the Guttmacher Institute explained in 2011: Contraceptive use ``help[s] women avoid short intervals between births, thereby reducing the risk of poor birth outcomes.'' ``[S]hort birth intervals have been linked with numerous negative perinatal outcomes,'' including ``low birth weight, pre-term birth and small size for gestational age.'' Contraceptives can also be used to treat common medical conditions including ``menstrual-related migraines, the treatment of pelvic pain that accompanies endometriosis, and of bleeding due to uterine fibroids.''

The Institute of Medicine also recognized the importance of these benefits when it recommended that all FDA-approved contraceptives should be covered without cost-sharing, pursuant to the Women's Health Amendment to the health care law, which I strongly supported.

Yet the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby means a woman's employer can for religious reasons ignore the federal requirement to include this important health benefit in its health plan.

To me, that is wrong. A woman's employer-provided health plan should include basic preventive services required by law, without the owners of the corporation she works for imposing their own personal religious views upon her health care decisions.

I understand some have argued that this decision doesn't impact women's access to contraception because it doesn't allow a corporation to bar a woman from buying contraception. That's ridiculous. Of course health insurance coverage impacts access to care. That is the whole point of insurance. No one would argue that if an employer decided not to cover antibiotics that patients would still have the same access to needed medication on their own. When insurance coverage is limited, access is limited as well, particularly for those of lower financial means.

According to a 2009 study from the Guttmacher Institute, 23 percent of women surveyed reported having a harder time paying for birth control during the economic downturn, and this number rose to one out of three among those who were financially worse off compared to the year before. In fact, my Republican colleagues felt that prescription drug coverage was so important to ensuring patient access to medication that they led the creation of Medicare Part D, which was signed into law by President Bush. I supported that legislation and still believe that health insurance coverage is critical to ensuring patient access.

It is also important to note that contraception is not the only issue here. The Hobby Lobby decision means that other Federal health laws-- including other benefits required by law, or even coverage itself-- could be the subject of a religious objection by a corporate employer.

In the United States more than half of all individuals get insurance through their employer, and estimates suggest that more than half of Americans work for a closely-held corporation.

In the Affordable Care Act Congress recognized the importance of preventive care. We included coverage without a copay for effective prevention services as determined by independent medical experts. I will just name some: Blood pressure and cholesterol screening, colonoscopies, immunizations, HIV tests, mammograms and cervical cancer screening, diabetes screening, autism screening for children, hearing tests for newborns and screening for sickle-cell anemia.

The point is certain essential, preventive services for adults and children

must be part of employer-provided health care under the law. But the Hobby Lobby decision grants for-profit corporations the ability to seek a religious exemption from providing them. Those exemptions may or may not be granted, but the Supreme Court has now opened the door to those claims.

In my view this is at odds with the fundamental principle that health care decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors.

This bill is simple: it would protect elements of employer-provided health care plans that are already required by law against challenge on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It would not infringe any individual's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, nor would it alter existing exemptions and accommodations for religious organizations and non-profits.

I urge my colleagues to defend the critical health protections that we have created and join me in supporting this bill.

Madam President, I am pleased to speak today on the Senate's passage last night of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I would like to speak briefly on the bill itself, as well as the process for its passage.

As Members know, the intelligence committee produces an authorization bill every year that both authorizes funds for the intelligence community and sets out legislation that authorizes and limits intelligence activities. This is the primary vehicle for legislation on intelligence matters and serves as one of the most important tools by which the intelligence committee, and indeed the Congress, is able to carry out its oversight duties.

From the committee's formation in 1976 through 2004, the Congress passed intelligence authorization legislation every year. Unfortunately, that streak came to an end during the last decade, and there was no Intelligence bill signed into law from 2005 to 2009. It is no coincidence that during this period the congressional oversight was also at a low point.

When I became chairman of the committee in January 2009, one of my top priorities was to reinstitute the annual authorization bill process. Fortunately, I was joined in that goal by then-vice chairman of the committee Kit Bond and by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes. We also, importantly, had the support of the majority and Republican leaders in the Senate and the leaders of the two committees with the greatest shared interest in the bill, the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

I am proud that the Congress has passed and the President has signed Intelligence authorization bills each of the past 4 years. With the Senate's action yesterday, we stand ready to pass a fifth.

The committee's preparation of the Fiscal Year 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act last summer was disrupted by the leaks, beginning in June 2013, of materials taken from the NSA by former contractor Edward Snowden. The committee held roughly a dozen hearings in the following months on NSA programs like the bulk phone metadata program conducted pursuant to title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and the targeted collection of electronic communications of non-U.S. persons outside the United States under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These were programs that had already been the subject of considerable committee oversight and discussion over the past several years.

The committee also received briefings on the extent of damage caused by the leaks and on the shortcomings of the internal security measures to prevent someone from accessing,

downloading, and leaving NSA with classified information.

We marked up a separate bill, the FISA Improvements Act, last October and then marked up the Intelligence authorization bill last November.

After approving the authorization bill, we worked with the House Intelligence Committee to produce the legislation that the Senate passed yesterday. We have preconferenced these bills over the past couple of years in order to move them through the process, with good results.

Let me describe a few of the provisions in the bill, as well as one that was not included.

First, the classified annex to the bill authorizes sufficient funding for the intelligence community to collect and analyze intelligence for our national security. Among other intelligence activities, the bill funds counterterrorism, counterproliferation, counterintelligence, and covert action programs.

While classification prevents me from getting into specifics, the bill also continues the committee's practice of adding funding for intelligence agencies to implement a better insider threat detection system. We have been pushing the intelligence agencies to shore up their safeguards before Mr. Snowden and continue to do so afterwards.

The bill recognizes that the intelligence community's funding has been reduced significantly due to budget cuts and sequestration. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified that while the challenges facing the intelligence community have grown, its resources have declined. He has made clear that the community can not do ``more with less''--it is going to have to do less, and that means accepting additional risk.

On the legislative side, the bill contains numerous provisions to strengthen intelligence oversight, protect whistleblowers, and enhance authorities for intelligence operations. Let me describe just a few of them here.

Two provisions in the bill are intended to enhance congressional oversight of significant legal interpretations affecting intelligence activities, particularly when such interpretations result from opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Section 321 amends the National Security Act to require that the general counsel of each intelligence agency notify the congressional intelligence committees, in writing, of any significant legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution or Federal law affecting intelligence activities conducted by that agency.

While the committee generally is kept apprised of the legal basis for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, as required by sections 502 and 503 of the National Security Act, there have been times when we have not gotten enough information in this regard for us to provide oversight. This provision is intended to ensure that, in the future, the committee receives a detailed, written notification of significant legal interpretations from these general counsels in a timely manner, to include significant interpretations resulting from opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, OLC.

Section 322 requires the Attorney General to establish a process for the regular review for official publication of significant OLC opinions that have been provided to any part of the Intelligence Community.

Section 322 also requires that if any OLC opinion would have been selected for official publication but for the fact that the publication would reveal classified or other sensitive information relating to national security, the opinion shall be provided or made available to the appropriate committees of Congress.

The committee regularly conducts oversight of intelligence activities that are the subject of one or more OLC opinions. These opinions often represent the best and most comprehensive legal analysis of intelligence activities. Further, the opinions are sometimes cited by intelligence community officials as the basis for executive branch policy. The committee regards access to these legal opinions as necessary to the performance of its oversight functions and often requests access to such opinions, or the legal analysis contained in such opinions, when the committee is made aware of their existence.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the intelligence community routinely decline to provide the committee with access to OLC opinions that are relevant to the committee's oversight functions, even when access is specifically requested by the committee. At times, the Department and intelligence agencies will not even advise the committee that relevant OLC opinions exist. Generally, when refusing to provide access to OLC opinions, the executive branch asserts that the information sought by the committee is subject to privilege.

The committee recognizes that, in certain limited cases, OLC opinions or information concerning OLC opinions may be entitled to executive privilege and withheld from Congress on that basis. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has found in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 1974, that executive privilege is a narrow and qualified privilege that may be overcome by an adequate showing of need.

Section 322 is intended to codify an agreement between the executive branch and the legislative branch with respect to access to OLC opinions provided to an intelligence agency. Specifically, section 322 is intended to ensure the committee is, at a minimum, granted access to all OLC opinions provided to an element of the intelligence community, or information concerning such OLC opinions, that would have been made available to the public had it been unclassified. Section 322 does not alter and is not intended to alter the responsibilities of the executive branch under the National Security Act, the Freedom of Information Act, or any other statute establishing a requirement for the disclosure of information to Congress or to the public, and there remain areas of disagreement between the branches with respect to the scope of the executive branch's responsibilities under such statutes. In particular, the rule of construction set forth in section 322(d) is intended to apply only to official publication under this section and should not be interpreted as congressional affirmation of a ``deliberative process'' privilege or any other privilege as the basis for withholding information from Congress or the public under any other statute.

Title VI of the intelligence authorization legislation includes a number of provisions to enhance whistleblower protections for intelligence community employees. These provisions prohibit taking a personnel action against an intelligence community employee as a reprisal for making a protected whistleblower disclosure to the DNI or his designee, the inspector general of the intelligence community, the head of the employing agency or his designee, the appropriate inspector general of the employing agency, a congressional intelligence committee, or a member of a congressional intelligence committee. In addition, title VI prohibits agency personnel with authority over personnel security clearance or access determinations from taking or failing to take or threatening to take or failing to take any action with respect to any employee's security clearance or access determination in retaliation for a protected whistleblower disclosure. Finally, the title directs the DNI to create procedures to allow appeals of adverse security clearance and access determinations.

These provisions strengthen and reaffirm the mechanisms already in existence for legitimate whistleblowers to bring information regarding violations of law or other concerns to one of several inspectors general throughout the government or to Congress. Importantly, these channels exist because it is not for any one person to decide on his own which intelligence methods are wise or effective.

I would like to note my appreciation for Senator Collins for her work on this portion of the bill and for Senator Chambliss and Congressman Mike Rogers for engaging in lengthy negotiations to find the workable compromise included in this bill.

Title IV of the bill requires Senate confirmation for the directors and inspectors general of the National Security Agency, NSA, and the National Reconnaissance Office, NRO. The individuals appointed to fill these positions perform critical roles in managing and/or overseeing technically complex,

highly expensive programs, with significant implications for national security. These individuals also play a vital role in ensuring that intelligence activities carried out by the NSA and NRO are conducted in full compliance with the law and in a manner that protects the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. By requiring Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of these four positions, Congress will be better able to fulfill its responsibility for providing oversight of the activities of these intelligence agencies.

A separate Senate resolution will govern the process for handling the confirmation of individuals nominated to these four positions. I am cognizant that the confirmation process in the Senate is time consuming, and it is my intention to continue the intelligence committee's practice of considering nominees quickly and moving them through the Senate on a swift and bipartisan basis.

Title V of the bill includes a number of provisions that are intended to improve the process for investigating persons who are proposed for access to classified information and adjudicating whether such persons satisfy the criteria for obtaining and retaining access to such information. Recent events, including the Snowden disclosures and the navy yard shooting, have highlighted the shortcomings of existing security clearance processes. The provisions in title V continue the committee's practice of seeking improvements to these processes. In particular, section 501 requires the DNI to ensure that the background of each employee or officer of the intelligence community, each intelligence community contractor, and each individual employee of such a contractor who has been determined to be eligible for access to classified information is monitored on a continual basis under standards developed by the Director.

Finally, section 309 continues Congress's push for financial auditability within the intelligence community by requiring key agencies to undergo full financial audits, beginning with their fiscal year 2014 financial statements and to take all reasonable steps to achieve an unqualified opinion on financial statements by fiscal year 2016.

With the budget reductions of the past couple of years, we simply cannot afford to mismanage Federal funds. Achieving financial auditability is a key tool to identify and eliminate wasted funding, and I am pleased to say that intelligence agencies are making progress in this regard--though they still have work to do.

In addition, I want to note one provision that does not appear in the bill as passed by the Senate. During the intelligence committee's consideration of this legislation, I moved an amendment, which was adopted by the committee, regarding U.S. counterterrorism operations. Specifically, the provision would have required that the President issue an annual public report that sets forth the total number of combatants and noncombatant civilians killed or injured during the preceding year through the use of targeted lethal force outside the United States by remotely piloted aircraft.

While the amendment was approved in committee, there was sufficient opposition to its inclusion in both the Senate and the House that the bill would not have passed with the provision included. I agreed to remove the provision from the bill but have engaged with the executive branch on the issue. I received a letter from Director of National Intelligence Clapper, dated April 18, 2014, that says the executive branch is ``currently exploring ways in which it can provide the American people more information about the United States' use of force outside areas of active hostilities'' and is ``committed to . . . sharing as much information as possible with the American people and the Congress.''

I continue to believe that it is important to release these figures concerning the number of people killed or injured by the use of targeted lethal force outside the United States by remotely piloted aircraft, as the public estimates of the number of casualties are so different from the official figures we have received. This will continue to be of interest, and I will continue to address the issue in the Senate and with the administration.

Today, though, I am very pleased that the Fiscal Year 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act has been approved by the Senate and is on its way to the House of Representatives. I believe that the bill includes a number of important measures and that by continuing to enact legislation, the intelligence committee will further strengthen its oversight role of U.S. intelligence activities.

Finally, I would like to thank, as always, the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Saxby Chambliss. We have worked together on this bill, and both of us support the package. We have also had to work both sides of the aisle to achieve unanimous support for the measure, and I thank him for his work and partnership.

I would also like to thank the staff who put the bill together. On the Democratic side, that is principally Eric Losick, SSCI counsel, Jon Rosenwasser, SSCI budget director, deputy staff director Lorenzo Goco, and counsel Mike Buchwald.

On the Republican side, I thank Jack Livingston and Kathleen Rice, our minority counsels, and Hayden Milberg, minority budget director.

I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, I rise today to state my strong support for the legislation on the floor that addresses the current healthcare crisis facing our nation's veterans. This bill, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014, is the product of excellent bipartisan work done by Senator Sanders and Senator McCain. I want to thank both of my colleagues for their efforts on drafting this legislation and finding a path to bring it to the Senate floor today. I believe their legislation will give our veterans access to the healthcare they deserve and that it will invest in the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care system.

While Senator Sanders' and McCain's legislation contains many good measures that will improve the healthcare our veterans receive at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, I would like to highlight three provisions in the bill that I believe are especially important for Congress to pass.

First, I am strongly supportive that the legislation contains a provision to allow the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to immediately terminate senior executives for poor performance. It is my opinion that the current scandal was largely a result of ineffective and disgraceful mismanagement. As a first step, the Department must be able to terminate any managers who directed or pressured staff to falsify or cover up wait times for veterans seeking health care. It is time for a new culture of management in the VA, and I look forward to providing this authority to the Department.

Second, I am grateful the legislation provides the authority for the VA to quickly hire new clinical staff, such as physicians and nurses, when there is a shortage of medical providers within the VA. The legislation allows the VA to use any unobligated funds at the end of each fiscal year to do such hiring. The audit released by the Department of Veterans Affairs this week clearly indicated that many medical facilities had a shortage of clinical providers. The legislation on the floor also authorizes the VA to enter into medical leases the Department has requested in previous years, but that Congress has not funded. These include four community outpatient clinics in California, which are in San Diego, Chico, Chula Vista, and Redding. Thus, I am confident the authority to hire new clinical staff and the authority to enter into much needed medical leases are critical measures that Congress must pass if we expect the VA to meet the growing demand of medical care our Nation's veterans need and deserve.

I am also glad the legislation the Senate is considering contains measures to beef up how VA hospitals are

evaluated for the quality of health care they provide, and that this information will be made public for veterans. The legislation contains a provision that would require the Department of Health and Human Services to complete evaluations of VA hospitals and to post this information publically. It also requires the Government Accountability Office to look at the metrics the VA is using to evaluate patient care and hospital quality. Finally, the bill will require the VA to publish its appointment wait times, which will increase the transparency of how quickly our veterans can access health care. Thus, I want to thank both Senator Sanders and Senator McCain for including such important provisions that will improve accountability, transparency, and health care quality at the VA.

Recently, the Department of Veterans Affairs released the results of its nation-wide Access Audit detailing the breadth of its struggle to responsibly manage waiting lists for care at its medical facilities across the country. The allegations of false record-keeping and other inappropriate scheduling practices were further substantiated. The audit made it clear that many staff members--13 percent interviewed nationally--were instructed to use inappropriate scheduling actions by their supervisors. The audit also revealed that at least one scheduler at 76 percent of all VA facilities indicated they received direction to enter inaccurate or misleading appointment data. The result is that some veterans were forced to wait an egregious amount of time for medical appointments, and surely many of these veterans suffered negative health effects as a result of these delays.

After the press reports of secret wait lists at the Phoenix VA Medical Center, I wrote a letter to the VA's acting inspector general urging him to expand the scope of his investigation in order to determine if similar problems were occurring elsewhere. On May 28, 2014, the VA's Office of the Inspector General released an interim report of the ongoing review at the Phoenix VA Health Care System. This independent review verified that deliberate action was taking to falsify wait times and to keep some veterans--1,700 in Phoenix--off official wait lists. In response to this report, on June 2, I wrote to Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson requesting an immediate review of medical appointment wait times at all California VA medical facilities, and that the VA take action to expedite appointments for veterans in my State waiting an excessive amount of time to receive health care.

California is home to 8 major Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care systems which include 66 medical centers and outpatient clinics. According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, of the nearly 22 million veterans in the United States, nine percent, or roughly 2 million, live in California; a figure greater than that of any other State. California's large population of veterans, many of which are concentrated in southern California, creates a substantial demand for medical care at California's VA Medical Centers.

The VA's Access Audit, released this week, validated the national extent of lengthy wait times and potential falsification of appointment records. It also makes it clear that California is not exempt from the recent VA scandal. The data collected shows that over 20,000 veterans in California are having to wait more than 30 days for a medical appointment. Nearly 3,000 are waiting more than 90 days for their appointment. Furthermore, nearly 7,000 California veterans are on electronic wait lists who have not been able to schedule any appointment. This lack of urgency to provide care to our Nation's veterans is not only appalling, it is also irresponsible.

In addition, I am deeply troubled that the recent audit identified that five VA health care facilities in my State had some evidence of falsifying or hiding wait times. They are the Livermore Medical Center, the Yuba City Outpatient Clinic, the Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, the Escondido Outpatient Clinic, and the Imperial Valley Outpatient Clinic. The VA recommended the Office of the Inspector General conduct investigations at these facilities in order to determine if any fraudulent or criminal activity occurred, and I eagerly await the results of these investigations.

It is clear to me that excessive wait times for medical appointments negatively impacts the health of our veterans. So, fixing the VA is not only about fixing the systemic management problems that led to a cover- up of appointment wait times at certain VA facilities across the Nation. The fix also must be about improving the VA's ability to provide high caliber health care to all of our Nation's veterans.

The VA must radically alter how it manages health care. It is my opinion that the VA's performance should be tied to the health outcomes of our veterans. The VA has played number games with appointment wait times in order to evaluate their performance for too long, and that must end today. I hope the new leadership at the Department will work to develop better measures of performance that are based on how well our veterans do in terms of health and wellbeing as a result of the care they receive at the VA.

For example, the VA should strive to reduce preventable drug resistant infections acquired in medical facilities. Deadly drug resistant infections are linked to poor infection control and the overuse of antibiotics in hospitals. These infections, like Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, and Clostridium difficile are deadly, difficult to treat, and largely preventable. VA hospitals that provide high quality medical care, that use antibiotics prudently, and that practice good hygiene will have lower rates of these infections, faster recovery times for hospitalized patients, and reduced health care costs. VA hospitals that have clear data that they use antibiotics appropriately, have fewer deadly hospital acquired infections, and have veterans who can be discharged faster should be noticed for their performance. I truly believe that a greater focus on health care quality and outcomes is critical for improving the VA's health care system.

The delays in access to health care and the culture of cover-ups that emerged within the Department of Veterans Affairs are absolutely unacceptable. Our Nation's veterans served and sacrificed for our country, and they deserve better. I truly believe the legislation introduced by Senators Sanders and McCain is the solution our veterans need and deserve. This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of doing what is right by those who defended our freedom.

Thus, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Madam President, I support the nomination of David Barron to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

There is no question that David Barron has the background and qualifications for this position.

Consider his credentials: over a decade as a Harvard law professor; 3 years at the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, in the Clinton administration, and another 2 years at OLC under President Obama as the Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of that office--during which time he was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service and the National Intelligence Exceptional Achievement Medal from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; he clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens and Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt; he earned his bachelor's and law degrees from Harvard; and a substantial majority of the ABA Committee found him to be ``well qualified,'' their highest rating.

In sum, David Barron's record shows that he will be a jurist of the highest caliber.

He also has a strong record of standing up for what is right on many issues, whether it is campaign finance or gay rights.

Many distinguished individuals in both parties have written to the Judiciary Committee to support Professor Barron. Among them are: Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former head of OLC under President George W. Bush, Michael McConnell, conservative law professor and former Tenth Circuit judge, who described Barron as ``one of President Obama's two or three best nominations to the appellate courts;'' Charles Fried, law professor and former Solicitor General under President Reagan; 15 former career attorneys at OLC who served in administrations of both parties; and Ron George, former chief justice of California and someone I deeply respect.

Chief Justice George wrote:

As a person who served for 38 years in a state court

system, the last 14 years as chief justice of California, I

have been particularly impressed by Mr. Barron's

understanding and respect for the critical role played by the

states and their courts in our federal system.

I respected the strong desire of some of my colleagues to have access to the two OLC memos related to the targeted killing of an American named Anwar al-Awlaki. Those memos were authored while Barron was Acting Assistant Attorney General at OLC.

However, I regret that even though the administration made those two opinions available to all Senators and even though the administration has recently decided to make the OLC analysis public, some still insist on delaying a vote on Professor Barron's nomination.

Let's contrast David Barron's nomination with that of another former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee, who led the office from 2001 to 2003.

He was in charge of OLC when it produced an opinion saying waterboarding and nine other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were not torture. On August 1, 2002, Mr. Bybee signed an opinion that set an unconscionably high bar for torture by saying that ``physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'' That opinion was withdrawn during the Bush administration by Bybee's successor, Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith.

Under Bybee, OLC also produced opinions about President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program that contain very troubling legal analysis. Because those opinions remain classified, I will not describe them here other than to note that they authorized a secret surveillance program that involved the collection of the content of communications without a court order and was in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Those OLC opinions also were withdrawn by Bybee's successor, Professor Goldsmith.

Despite the fact that those opinions were produced when he was head of OLC, Jay Bybee was nominated by the Bush administration to a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit. He was confirmed 74 to 19 in March 2003. I was one of 19 voting no.

Why would we confirm the man who approved the so-called ``torture memos'' and led OLC when it approved President Bush's surveillance program but delay David Barron, who produced superior legal work as head of OLC? The only reason I have heard is that Senators may believe that the two OLC opinions on Anwar al-Awlaki should be made public. Let me address that.

First, this week the Department of Justice took steps to ensure that the OLC analysis will be made public. The Justice Department has decided not to appeal a court order from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals requiring the OLC analysis to be made public. So this will happen in the near future.

Second, Professor Barron left OLC in 2010--well before the strike killed Awlaki in Yemen in September 2011. Since 2010, Professor Barron has been in academia.

It wasn't Barron's decision to withhold the OLC memos from Congress or from the public.

Let me quote from Professors Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried, both legal experts often on opposite sides of issues. They wrote an op-ed together about Barron in the Boston Globe. It reads, in part:

[Barron] has not advocated, much less ordered, the

withholding of any documents. His job as acting head of the

Office of Legal Counsel was to provide thorough, accurate,

and unvarnished legal opinions to the president and other

executive officials, based on the traditional legal

authorities of text, history, and precedent. We have every

reason to believe that is precisely what he did, and there is

absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

In fact, Professor Barron implemented policies that have made OLC more rigorous, professional, and transparent.

First, when he was acting head of OLC, Barron ordered the withdrawal of several opinions related to coercive interrogation that had been issued during the Bush administration.

Second, on July 16, 2010, Professor Barron wrote a memo entitled ``Re: Best Practices for OLC Legal Advice and Written Opinions'' that updated previous OLC guidance. It said that OLC ``operates from the presumption that it should make its significant

opinions fully and promptly available to the public. This presumption furthers the interests of Executive Branch transparency, thereby contributing to accountability and effective government, and promoting public confidence in the legality of government action.'' This presumption did not exist in the Bush administration; David Barron was responsible for establishing it as OLC policy. Given Barron's impressive record and his shift of OLC toward more transparency, it simply is wrong to oppose his nomination because a classified OLC opinion on drone strikes has not been made public yet, a decision that was not even his to make.

Since the OLC opinions on Anwar al-Awlaki that Professor Barron wrote seem to have become the issue holding up this nomination, let me close with a reminder of the specific plotting Awlaki was involved in before he was killed in 2011.

True, Awlaki was a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen, but he served as chief of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP. In that position, he planned and directed attacks against the United States, making him an imminent and continuing threat.

Awlaki played a significant operational role in AQAP. In 2010, the United States designated Awlaki a ``Specially Designated Global Terrorist'' for ``supporting acts of terrorism and for acting for or on behalf of AQAP.''

Awlaki publicly urged attacks against U.S. persons and interests worldwide. He worked with another American named Samir Khan to publish AQAP's Inspire Magazine to encourage terrorist attacks against innocent men, women, and children in the United States and elsewhere. As a reminder, Inspire Magazine provided the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston with the instructions for making the bomb they used at the Boston Marathon last year.

Let me offer just a few examples of Awlaki's direct involvement in terrorist operations:

Christmas Day Attack--In December 2009, Awlaki directed operative Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate an explosive device aboard a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. Awlaki instructed Abdulmutallab to detonate the device while over U.S. airspace to maximize casualties.

Fort Hood Attack--Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan attended al-Awlaki's sermons in Virginia and corresponded at least 18 times with him through email. After the attack, Awlaki posted on his blog praising Hasan's actions and calling him his ``student and brother.''

Times Square Bombing Attempt--Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, told interrogators in early 2010 that he was ``inspired by'' Awlaki and communicated with him.

Package Bomb Plot--in October 2010, Awlaki had a direct role in supervising and directing AQAP's failed attempt to bring down two U.S. cargo aircraft by detonating explosives concealed inside two packages mailed to Chicago-area synagogues.

In sum, there is no doubt that Awlaki was chief of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, and a continuing and imminent threat to the United States.

David Barron's legal analysis of whether the United States can target Awlaki is cogent, careful legal analysis and reflects the kind of consideration of due process that we should applaud, not punish.

Barron certainly should not be disqualified because he was the head of OLC when that targeting decision--a targeting decision Barron did not advocate for--was being contemplated and analyzed by the Obama administration.

Let me conclude by saying this: David Barron is an impressive lawyer and scholar with a strong record. Nobody doubts that. Distinguished lawyers on both sides of the aisle have endorsed him wholeheartedly.

The reason for this is simple: His qualifications are first rate, and he has under his belt many years of commendable scholarship and service to this nation.

Simply put, he will be an outstanding jurist for the people of the First Circuit, and I very much hope my colleagues will support him.

Madam President, I come to the floor to congratulate Justice Carlos Moreno on his confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to Belize.

Justice Moreno has served on the Federal district court in Los Angeles and the California Supreme Court with distinction. I am confident he will continue to proudly serve his country as our Nation's representative to Belize.

I have strongly supported Justice Moreno's nomination because I know him very well. He has a powerful intellect. He has a good heart, and he has sound judgment.

The son of Mexican immigrants, Justice Moreno grew up in East Los Angeles. He was the first in his family to graduate from college, attending Yale on a scholarship and graduating in 1979. He earned his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1975.

He then worked at the city attorney's office, in private practice, and as a judge at two levels of our State's judicial system.

In 1997, I recommended him to President Clinton for appointment to the district court in Los Angeles.

I knew then that he was a ``ten,'' and I was very proud to introduce him to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and to support his nomination on the floor of the Senate at that time.

In fact, I was not the only member to speak on Justice Moreno's behalf on the floor. Senator Hatch did so. Senator Leahy did so. And he was confirmed 96-0.

The reason is, to quote a letter from then-Los Angeles County Sherriff Sherman Block, that Justice Moreno ``is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity.''

In 2001, Justice Moreno was appointed by Governor Gray Davis to serve on the Supreme Court of California.

I was sorry to see him leave the Federal district court, but I knew Governor Davis had chosen an outstanding individual to serve on our State's highest court.

Anyone who has followed California law since then knows that Justice Moreno served with great distinction, writing with a clarity and passion that served as an inspiration to our State.

In 2008, I invited him to serve on my bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee in Los Angeles. I use these committees to advise me on whom to recommend to the President for seats on the U.S. district courts.

Over the last 6 years, I have come to rely on Justice Moreno's fine judgment and sound advice in making these important appointments.

Unfortunately, his nomination to be an ambassador meant that that Justice Moreno had to leave my Judicial Advisory Committee behind.

I will miss his advice on judicial appointments a great deal. But I believe very strongly that Justice Moreno's record shows he has the intellect, judgment, compassion, and temperament to serve our Nation very well as an ambassador.

I am very pleased my colleagues agreed to confirm Moreno's nomination. He is certain to make us very proud.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disappointment over yesterday's vote to increase the Federal minimum wage. It is vitally important that working families receive a long- overdue pay increase, but once again the Senate failed to move forward on a crucial piece of legislation.

At $7.25 per hour, today's Federal minimum wage fails to provide a living wage for many Americans. Working a standard 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, with no time off and no sick days, the minimum wage pays just over $15,000 a year.

In many parts of the country, including California, that salary is nowhere near enough for an individual to subsist, let alone a family.

It is difficult to fathom how a single mother working a minimum wage job--or jobs--can survive. These are the Americans who would benefit from this bill.

To get a better idea of what the standard 40-hour-a-week worker must earn to meet basic necessities, I had my staff look at the cost-of- living in various California cities.

In San Francisco, a single adult with no children would need to earn over $12 an hour to meet basic necessities.

In Los Angeles, they would need to make over $11 dollars an hour. The same goes for San Diego. That amount only increases for families.

By one measure, a single mother with two children living in San Francisco would have to earn almost $30 an hour just to meet basic necessities.

I would add that we aren't debating an exorbitant increase. Moving from $7.25 to $10.10 would still leave many low-income working families well short of a living wage. But it is a start, and it would benefit millions of low-income working Americans.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed minimum wage increase would increase incomes for 16.5 million low-wage workers; 97 percent of the low-wage working population would benefit from this increase; 900,000 low-wage workers would move above the poverty line; and the increase in the federal minimum wage could reduce demands on other Federal assistance programs.

A lot of attention has been given to CBO's estimate that increasing the minimum wage would lead to 500,000 job losses for low wage workers. It is important to note that CBO's estimate is the median in a wide range of estimates on the employment effects of increases in the minimum wage.

When you study the report, you find that most estimates of job losses related to increases in the minimum wage are clustered around zero, which means that most studies have found that increasing the minimum wage has a negligible effect on employment.

This isn't to say businesses won't have to make some adjustments. Some will have to raise prices, some might see slightly reduced profits, and some might slow hiring or choose to reduce their workforce.

But the effects will not be devastating, as opponents of the minimum wage increase suggest. In fact, cities and States throughout the country are natural experiments for the effects of a minimum wage increase on jobs.

The minimum wage in San Francisco is currently $10.79 per hour. Far from an economic catastrophe, San Francisco is enjoying a sustained period of economic growth and employment. San Jose, which has a similar minimum wage, also has a robust labor market.

Bloomberg has also researched the effects of minimum wage increases on employment and found that employment effects are negligible and, in general, States that have recently raised the minimum wage are actually creating more jobs than those that haven't.

Washington State increased its minimum wage in 1998 and tied the wage to increases in inflation. The minimum wage is currently the highest in the country.

Since that time, annual job growth in Washington has outpaced the rest of the country, and the service industry has added thousands of jobs. There are many other examples of localities that exceed the Federal minimum wage and continue to experience sustained job growth.

It is clear to me that businesses are capable of adjusting for an increase in the minimum wage in a way that will allow them to thrive.

And a minimum wage increase would not only alleviate some of the burdens and obstacles facing the low wage work force, it would also put more than $30 billion in the pockets of workers struggling to get by, those most in need of a pay raise.

According to many economists, that additional income could spur local economies, more than offsetting any negative effects from a minimum wage increase.

In a time of nearly unprecedented income inequality--during which the wealthy have actually made even more money--it is vitally important that Congress enacts laws to allow all

Americans to benefit from economic advancement.

Increasing the minimum wage is certainly not the only option. Congress should be looking elsewhere to do even more to ensure that children born into low income families aren't locked into a life of poverty. But increasing the minimum wage would be a step toward that goal. It would also serve as an indication that Congress appreciates the daunting challenges posed by income inequality and is willing to confront them.

Mr. President, I fully support an increase in the minimum wage and I hope that we can come together to find a way to reconsider the minimum wage bill and move it forward.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Cynthia Bashant to the Federal district court in San Diego.

As my colleagues know, I recommend candidates to the President through a bipartisan judicial selection process. Judge Bashant excelled in this process, earning my recommendation to President Obama.

I am confident she will do an outstanding job on the Federal bench.

She earned her bachelor's degree from Smith College in 1982 and her law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1986.

She spent 3 years practicing civil litigation at the law firm MacDonald Halsted & Layborne, which later became part of the firm Baker & McKenzie.

In 1989, she joined the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, where she tried at least 15 cases in Federal court.

Judge Bashant served as deputy chief of the narcotics unit in San Diego from 1995 to 1997, and then as chief of the border crimes unit from 1997 to 1998.

During her prosecutorial career, she prosecuted numerous important cases. One was a major drug trafficking case that involved: the Sinaloa drug cartel; a 1,600-foot tunnel under the southern border; 23 defendants; and wiretaps in Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

She prosecuted an individual who robbed more than 20 banks, a local record in San Diego at the time.

Just after the Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994, Judge Bashant prosecuted the first Federal domestic violence case in the Southern District of California and one of the first in the Nation.

The defendant was accused of luring his wife, who had just filed for divorce, into their car, after which he took her to Mexico against her will, beat her black and blue, and cut off all of her hair. The defendant pleaded guilty to violating a provision of VAWA designed to criminalize precisely this sort of conduct.

In one of her other cases, the defendant was a human smuggler. To avoid a checkpoint, he led a large group of undocumented immigrants across the Interstate 5 freeway on foot. The group included a mother and her six children, ranging in age from 6 to 15 years old.

The 6-year old boy was killed by oncoming traffic in front of his mother. The smuggler simply left the mother and her five other children by the side of the road.

In preparation for trial, Judge Bashant met extensively with the mother, who understandably was distraught and afraid to testify. Judge Bashant and the mother's sister helped the mother be ready to testify against the smuggler.

Ultimately, Judge Bashant secured a guilty plea from the defendant, and the court imposed several sentencing enhancements on him.

For her work on this case, Judge Bashant won the Justice Department's Victim-Witness Award.

She also won numerous other DOJ awards, including the Director's Award for Superior Performance and special commendations 6 years in a row.

In 2000, Judge Bashant was appointed to the San Diego Superior Court.

As a judge, she has presided over more than 1,000 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment--including more than 100 criminal jury trials.

She has been a leader on the superior court, as well as in the San Diego community. Most recently, she was presiding judge of the Juvenile Court from 2009 to 2012.

In 2012, the San Diego Juvenile Justice Commission named her Judge of the Year.

She served as chair of the San Diego Commission on Children, Youth, and Families, which advises the county board of supervisors on issues affecting family well-being.

She served on the San Diego County Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council as well.

She also has served as president and currently serves on the advisory board of the Lawyers Club of San Diego--a highly respected organization that works to promote gender equality in the legal profession.

She also has served on the board of the Children's Initiative of San Diego, which was established in 1992 to advocate for effective policies to support the health and well-being of children, youth, and families in San Diego.

Simply put, Judge Bashant is a perfect fit for this position. She has experience in private practice. She spent 11 years as a Federal prosecutor in San Diego. She has been running her own courtroom for 13 years.

I have no doubt she will hit the ground running on the Southern District, which has the third-greatest criminal caseload per judgeship in the Nation.

Beyond her qualifications and experience, Judge Bashant clearly is an outstanding woman and a real leader. As one of her judicial colleagues told my judicial selection committee, Judge Bashant is ``an energetic, smart, really impressive hard worker who `really cares.' ''

So, I am very proud to have recommended Judge Bashant to the President, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Michelle Friedland to the Ninth Circuit.

This nomination was approved in the Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 14 to 3, including support from four Republican members: Ranking Member Grassley, and Senators Hatch, Graham, and Flake. She has earned the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well qualified.''

If she is confirmed, which I very much hope she is, it would mark the first time ever that the Ninth Circuit, the busiest circuit in the country by some measures, has its full complement of 29 active circuit judges.

Michelle Friedland earned her bachelor's degree, with honors and distinction, from Stanford University in 1994. She was Phi Beta Kappa, and became a Fulbright Scholar from 1995 to 1996, studying at Oxford.

She earned her law degree from Stanford Law School in 2000, where she was second in her class, graduated with distinction, and inducted into the Order of the Coif.

She then had two prestigious clerkships. The first was with Judge David Tatel on the DC Circuit.

She then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who attended Ms. Friedland's confirmation hearing this past November.

Although I could not attend that hearing, it said a great deal that Justice O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a voice of great moderation and pragmatism on the Court, came to the Judiciary Committee and demonstrated her support in person for this nominee.

Ms. Friedland then served as a lecturer at Stanford Law School from 2002 to 2004 and subsequently joined the law firm Munger Tolles & Olsen, where she is now a partner.

She has represented major clients, including Berkshire Hathaway, Boeing, Abbott Laboratories, the University of California, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals. She has worked on issues including criminal defense, class action defense, tax, patent, copyright, and antitrust.

She has also done pro bono work, devoting time, for example, to the Silicon Valley Campaign for Legal Services and Equality California.

She has won the President's Pro Bono Service Award and the Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services, both from the State Bar of California.

She also has broad support in the legal community. One letter came from 27 individuals who clerked on the Supreme Court--including for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas--when Ms. Friedland clerked for Justice O'Connor. They said that Friedland is ``respectful of colleagues, fair-minded to attorneys and litigants, and sharp as a tack.''

A second letter is from Kathryn Haun, who previously served in the Justice Department under Attorney General Mukasey and in the National Security Division. Today she is a Federal prosecutor in Northern California.

Ms. Haun has known Michelle Friedland since they were classmates in the same small section at Stanford Law School. Ms. Haun's letter says:

I clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, am a

member of the Federalist Society, and have always been a

registered Republican. Notwithstanding our political

differences, I believe [Michelle Friedland] would make an

outstanding federal appellate judge if confirmed. This is

because Michelle has a deep respect for legal precedent above

seeking a particular result in a given case.

A third letter is from the general counsel of Cisco, Edison International, Google, Facebook, Rambus, and other companies. It speaks very highly of this nominee, and says, quote: ``All parties appearing before her, from individual litigants to small businesses to the nation's largest corporations, would be confident that she will adjudge their cases fairly and in accordance with the law.''

The Ninth Circuit is also the busiest circuit. It has over 1,470 pending appeals per panel. This is two and a half times the average of the other circuits.

It comes as no surprise, then, that it takes much longer to resolve an appeal in the Ninth Circuit than in the other circuits. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit takes 13.3 months to resolve an appeal. This is down from 17.4 months in 2011, but it is still 55 percent greater than the average in the other circuits.

Thus, it is very important for businesses, individuals, and others in all States in the Ninth Circuit that nominees to this court are promptly taken up and confirmed.

I will conclude by remarking upon what I see as a real opportunity for the Senate in the coming months.

When I was first elected to the Senate in 1992, it was called by some the Year of the Woman. Senator Boxer and I were both elected that year, as were Senator Murray and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun.

Yet after we were all sworn in, there were still only six women in the Senate. I became the first woman ever to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after some very divisive hearings for

Justice Clarence Thomas, in which the lack of women on the Judiciary Committee became an issue.

At the time, the Federal courts were mainly the province of men appointed by the two most recent Presidents.

About 92 percent of President Reagan's confirmed judicial nominees were men. That number fell under President George H.W. Bush, but only to 81 percent. Overall, only 12.6 percent of active Federal judges were women when I was sworn in to the Senate.

Although women have been close to half of all law students for decades, even today only 53 of 164 active circuit judges--or 32 percent--are women.

Right now, there are female nominees for the Third, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits pending in the Senate--a total of six nominees, with four simply waiting for a floor vote. To put these numbers in perspective, there were only 6 women confirmed to the circuit courts during all 8 years of the Reagan administration.

If all six of these pending nominees are confirmed, the number of active female circuit judges would grow by over 11 percent. That is a big deal, and it is a real opportunity to increase significantly the number of women on the circuit courts.

Michelle Friedland is well qualified, she has bipartisan support, and her confirmation would give the Ninth Circuit--the busiest circuit--a full complement of 29 judges for the first time. I urge my colleagues to support her.

Madam President, almost 51 years after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, women now make up almost half of the workforce; however, gender-based wage discrimination is still pervasive. Statistics show that there is a significant difference in the pay of men and women performing the same or substantially similar jobs, regardless of the education level or type of occupation. Looking at the average pay for women, women get paid about 77 cents for every dollar earned by similar male workers.

The experience of women in the workforce is better in California but not by much. According to the most recent census estimates, in California, the average pay for a woman working full time, year round is $41,956 per year, while the average for a man is $50,139. This means that, on average, women in California are paid less than 84 cents for every dollar paid to men. Put another way, this amounts to a yearly gap of $8,183 between full-time working men and women in the State. Over the course of a career, on average, women stand to lose $434,000 in income and thus enjoy fewer Social Security, pension, and retirement benefits.

Latina women face greater disparities in the workplace as they are paid approximately 54 cents for every dollar paid to men. Women of color fare similarly.

As a group, full-time working women in California alone lose over $37.5 billion each year due to the wage gap.

According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, if the gender-based ``pay gap'' were eliminated, a working woman in California would have enough money for approximately 59 more weeks of food, 4 more months of mortgage and utilities payments, 7 more months of rent, or 2,103 additional gallons of gas.

A Redondo Beach resident wrote to me, ``I know that at my current age, I have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars less than my colleagues, though I am also paying my rent . . .

supporting my kids, and trying to figure out how I can possibly pay for colleges for them. If I had been earning a fair wage, I could afford college, and healthcare, and would have some retirement savings, all things that I cannot currently do.''

She is absolutely right--it is estimated that it takes a woman 4\1/2\ more months of work to earn the same as her male counterpart earns in just 1 year. Yet she still must pay for the same monthly expenses as her male colleagues. In Redondo Beach, her monthly expenses can be crippling.

A single adult with two children living in Redondo Beach spends monthly around $536 in food, $767 in child care, $451 in medical care, $1,420 in housing, and $639 in transportation, not to mention taxes. Considering that over 1.7 million households in California are headed by women, over 500,000 of whom fall below the poverty level as it is, denying California women equal pay for equal work adds to their burden and affects their families.

This is not just a problem for low-income women and families. The pay gap exists across the spectrum of education levels and occupations. According to the 2012 S&P 500 CEO Pay Study, although companies run by female chief executive officers performed better on average than those run by men--looking at the total shareholder return for their companies--those female CEOs were paid an average of about $500,000 less per year than their male CEO counterparts. And the pay gap is wider for women with higher education, making it more difficult for them to pay off their school loans.

Congress tried to address the problem by passing the Equal Pay Act in 1963, which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially the same work. However, as is reflected in wage data statistics and in the stories shared by women across the country, while the Equal Pay Act was a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to clarify the law.

Congress recently had to correct the courts on how to interpret pay discrimination laws in line with their original intent by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Through Lilly Ledbetter, Congress amended title VII of the Civil Rights Act to clarify the timeframes in which employees could bring a claim against employers who engage in pay discrimination.

But according to recent studies, Congress needs to strengthen the law further in order to effectively close the pay gap between men and women across the spectrum. The disparity in pay between men and women is the same as it was in 2002. If we keep going at this rate, without congressional action, women will not reach pay equity until 2058.

The Paycheck Fairness Act therefore provides Congress with an opportunity to eliminate this unfair pay gap. It will reasonably update the Equal Pay Act by eliminating loopholes used for far too long in courtrooms; strengthening incentives to employers to prevent pay discrimination through remedies available under current law to victims of race-based and national origin discrimination; improving wage data collection so that we can better evaluate the pay gap; and by strengthening education, training, outreach, and enforcement efforts to close the pay gap.

This bill also importantly provides that employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their coworkers. Nearly half of all workers in the United States are strongly discouraged or even have workplace policies against the sharing of salary information. This secrecy makes it extremely difficult for employees to detect pay discrimination and contributes to the pay gap. For example, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male coworkers for almost 20 years but did not realize it because a company policy prohibited her from discussing her pay with her coworkers. She discovered the pay discrimination only when someone sent her an anonymous note.

Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, employees would therefore generally be protected from retaliation when they discuss or inquire about their wages or the wages of another employee. They would also be protected from retaliation if they make a charge, file a complaint, or participate in a government or employer-initiated investigation. These antiretaliation provisions would generally not protect employees such as payroll or HR personnel who have access to wage information as an essential function of their job. Rather, the antiretaliation provisions would enable employees to learn about their employers' wage practices without being afraid of losing their jobs. With such information, employees will be better suited to close the gender pay gap for themselves and others.

I recognize the concerns of business owners who maintain that amending the Equal Pay Act will open them up to liability and risk harming their business. I have heard concerns that employers fear that this bill will infringe on their private business practices should it become law.

After considering and reconsidering the effects of this legislation with the concerns of business owners in mind and after consulting with experts in employment and labor law, I came to the conclusion that this bill is necessary to level the playing field and does not have to necessarily affect business practices so long as those business practices do not discriminate against women.

As under the current law, employers would not be helpless or defenseless--they can proactively conduct an internal pay-equity analysis to ensure equal pay for equal work before government intervention. In fact, the bill provides for a 6-month waiting period from the time of enactment, and the Department of Labor would assist small businesses with compliance.

Should a claim arise, employers have affirmative defenses that they can raise to justify pay differences, such as if the wages are set based on a seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of product; or a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, which is job- related and serves a legitimate business interest.

I am not in the habit of supporting bills that advance women just because I am a woman. I am supporting this bill because I believe in advancing equal rights and uplifting millions of families who rely on a woman's paycheck in order to eat.

I am not alone in hearing stories about paycheck disparities in California. My colleagues have heard similar stories from women in their States. We also know that women are critical to driving this economy, and by ensuring equal pay for equal work, the entire economy benefits.

With the knowledge of pervasive inequality still today in pay among men and women and considering that the majority of Americans support the government taking steps to enable women to get equal pay for equal work, it is our duty to vote in favor of cloture and for swift passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. President, I support the confirmation of Gen. Frank Taylor to be the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS.

General Taylor has a long and distinguished career in national security, starting with his 31 years in the U.S. Air Force, most of which was spent in counterintelligence. In his final assignment for the Air Force, General Taylor led the Air Force Office of Special Investigations where his office provided independent investigations of fraud, counterintelligence, and major criminal matters.

In 2001, he was named Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the top counterterrorism position in the State Department, where he was a key advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell. After that position, General Taylor served as the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of diplomatic security where he was in charge of security for over 250 U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide.

General Taylor has spent the past 9 years in the private sector, most as the chief security officer for General Electric where he was responsible for GE's global security operations and crisis management. In that position, he has seen the government's homeland security functions from the outside, giving him an important perspective on the Department of Homeland Security's support to the private sector.

General Taylor will have to put his extensive experience and leadership skills to good use as Under Secretary of DHS for Intelligence and Analysis. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis has been without a leader confirmed by the Senate for over a year now, and it has a large number of missions, like DHS as a whole.

I hope and expect that General Taylor will provide strong leadership to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS and I look forward to working with him.

General Taylor was approved by the Intelligence Committee on March 4, 2014, and the committee received several letters supporting him, including from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association which represents the law enforcement agencies in largest cities in the U.S.

I fully support General Taylor's confirmation.

Mr. President, I supported the confirmation of Mr. John Carlin to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security in the Department of Justice, DOJ.

Mr. Carlin was serving as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, the top position in the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, which brings together the counterterrorism, intelligence, and counterintelligence efforts within

Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Cardin and Schatz in introducing the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act.

This bill has been drafted cooperatively, and my colleagues have been especially accommodating of changes requested by California's experts. I thank them for their hard work on this bill.

This legislation revises and extends energy efficiency tax incentives for homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities.

The bill continues the effort for energy efficiency improvements that I began with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire in 2001. I was proud to pass that legislation with Senator Snowe in 2005.

The Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act builds on that law by reforming tax code incentives to implement a performance-based regime in which incentives grow larger as energy efficiency increases.

The policy improvements in this bill were recommended by energy efficiency experts.

This bill establishes energy and water efficiency incentives for commercial buildings and industrial facilities, about which Senator Cardin and Senator Schatz have focused their remarks.

I would like to focus on a different provision in the bill: tax credits for home renovations that will increase energy efficiency of homes by at least 20 percent.

The tax credit would increase in size with every 5 percent of additional energy efficiency improvement achieved.

Homeowners who improve the efficiency of their home by more than 50 percent will qualify for a maximum credit of $5,000.

In addition to increased energy efficiency, this bill helps address the continued double digit unemployment in the construction sector.

It is clear that we need policies that will help put the construction industry back to work, but with 10 percent of homes still vacant, any stimulation of new-home construction could make the situation worse.

That is why this bill is so creative--it stimulates the construction industry by incentivizing the renovation of existing homes.

This bill creates tax incentives for energy efficiency home renovation based on the energy performance of the home, rather than just the cost of the equipment.

Current policy allows homeowners to claim credits for the purchase of energy efficient insulation, windows, doors, heaters, air conditioners and water heaters. That approach is expensive, costing about $2 billion per year.

By restructuring the credit to apply to whole-home energy renovations that reward energy efficiency performance, this proposal has the potential to increase effectiveness while substantially lowering the cost to the U.S. Treasury.

This legislation also includes provisions to promote effectiveness and prevent abuse. The contractor carrying out the work must sign an affidavit certifying the work was done, as well as submit photographs of the work. Additionally, the contractor must use certified, computer- based energy efficiency measurement tools.

The credit would be limited to renovations of primary residences that do not increase the size of the home. The credit would be capped at 30 percent of the cost of renovation in order to prevent homeowners from making large claims for relatively inexpensive renovations.

Since it is a tax credit, all claims would be subject to IRS audits.

In addition to incentivizing energy efficiency improvements, the bill also creates an Industrial Process Water Use Project Credit.

This is a technology-neutral, performance-based tax credit for implementing efficiency measures to reduce the use of water in the manufacturing sector.

In a state like California, which frequently faces very dry conditions, rewarding water conservation and efficiency measures is beneficial.

Much like the energy provisions, the bill increases the tax incentives as water savings grow.

The incentive begins with a 10 percent tax credit for implementing efficiency measures that achieve at least

25 percent reduction in water use. The tax credit then increases by 10 percent for each 25 percent additional water savings, with a 30 percent maximum.

This bill is important because it will help incentivize the construction industry to upgrade buildings across the country.

The 113 million homes in America account for 22 percent of the U.S. energy use, according to the Department of Energy. And 4.8 million commercial and 350,000 industrial facilities account for an additional 18 percent.

These buildings also account for 27 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Experts and scientists believe improving energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent McKinsey & Co. study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for homes and commercial buildings could help reduce U.S. energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020.

This is a jobs bill that also rewards energy and water efficiency renovations. It will lead to more jobs in the construction sector, an increase in energy efficiency, a reduction in pollution, and an expansion of the market for efficient technology and products.

This bill is supported by the Alliance to Save Energy, Efficiency First, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resource Defense Council.

This sort of investment--putting Americans back to work to upgrade the country's infrastructure--is the type of legislation on which Congress should be spending more time.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Cardin and Schatz in introducing the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act.

This bill has been drafted cooperatively, and my colleagues have been especially accommodating of changes requested by California's experts. I thank them for their hard work on this bill.

This legislation revises and extends energy efficiency tax incentives for homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities.

The bill continues the effort for energy efficiency improvements that I began with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire in 2001. I was proud to pass that legislation with Senator Snowe in 2005.

The Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act builds on that law by reforming tax code incentives to implement a performance-based regime in which incentives grow larger as energy efficiency increases.

The policy improvements in this bill were recommended by energy efficiency experts.

This bill establishes energy and water efficiency incentives for commercial buildings and industrial facilities, about which Senator Cardin and Senator Schatz have focused their remarks.

I would like to focus on a different provision in the bill: tax credits for home renovations that will increase energy efficiency of homes by at least 20 percent.

The tax credit would increase in size with every 5 percent of additional energy efficiency improvement achieved.

Homeowners who improve the efficiency of their home by more than 50 percent will qualify for a maximum credit of $5,000.

In addition to increased energy efficiency, this bill helps address the continued double digit unemployment in the construction sector.

It is clear that we need policies that will help put the construction industry back to work, but with 10 percent of homes still vacant, any stimulation of new-home construction could make the situation worse.

That is why this bill is so creative--it stimulates the construction industry by incentivizing the renovation of existing homes.

This bill creates tax incentives for energy efficiency home renovation based on the energy performance of the home, rather than just the cost of the equipment.

Current policy allows homeowners to claim credits for the purchase of energy efficient insulation, windows, doors, heaters, air conditioners and water heaters. That approach is expensive, costing about $2 billion per year.

By restructuring the credit to apply to whole-home energy renovations that reward energy efficiency performance, this proposal has the potential to increase effectiveness while substantially lowering the cost to the U.S. Treasury.

This legislation also includes provisions to promote effectiveness and prevent abuse. The contractor carrying out the work must sign an affidavit certifying the work was done, as well as submit photographs of the work. Additionally, the contractor must use certified, computer- based energy efficiency measurement tools.

The credit would be limited to renovations of primary residences that do not increase the size of the home. The credit would be capped at 30 percent of the cost of renovation in order to prevent homeowners from making large claims for relatively inexpensive renovations.

Since it is a tax credit, all claims would be subject to IRS audits.

In addition to incentivizing energy efficiency improvements, the bill also creates an Industrial Process Water Use Project Credit.

This is a technology-neutral, performance-based tax credit for implementing efficiency measures to reduce the use of water in the manufacturing sector.

In a state like California, which frequently faces very dry conditions, rewarding water conservation and efficiency measures is beneficial.

Much like the energy provisions, the bill increases the tax incentives as water savings grow.

The incentive begins with a 10 percent tax credit for implementing efficiency measures that achieve at least

25 percent reduction in water use. The tax credit then increases by 10 percent for each 25 percent additional water savings, with a 30 percent maximum.

This bill is important because it will help incentivize the construction industry to upgrade buildings across the country.

The 113 million homes in America account for 22 percent of the U.S. energy use, according to the Department of Energy. And 4.8 million commercial and 350,000 industrial facilities account for an additional 18 percent.

These buildings also account for 27 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Experts and scientists believe improving energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent McKinsey & Co. study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for homes and commercial buildings could help reduce U.S. energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020.

This is a jobs bill that also rewards energy and water efficiency renovations. It will lead to more jobs in the construction sector, an increase in energy efficiency, a reduction in pollution, and an expansion of the market for efficient technology and products.

This bill is supported by the Alliance to Save Energy, Efficiency First, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resource Defense Council.

This sort of investment--putting Americans back to work to upgrade the country's infrastructure--is the type of legislation on which Congress should be spending more time.