Floor Statements

Would the Chair announce the business for the day?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume executive session to consider the nomination of John Brennan to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12:30 and the time from 2:00 until 3:00 be equally divided in the usual form, and that I be recognized at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, the Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2 p.m. today. Both the majority and minority have caucus meetings. Cloture was filed on the nomination this morning. If no agreement is reached, we are going to vote Saturday morning. I hope we can arrive at an earlier vote, but everyone should note we have sent directives to all of the Senators on this side indicating we may need a vote on Saturday. We need to do this because we have to be on the continuing resolution on Monday, and we have to finish that next week because the next week is the budget and we have to do that before the break we take for Easter.

Mr. President, my Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of regular order. If only we could get back to regular order, they say, we could function again. Yesterday, we saw both sides of that.

On the one hand, my Republican colleagues did practice regular order. On the other, they didn't. Let's take the one they didn't.

They demanded a 60-vote threshold for confirmation of a very qualified nominee, Caitlin Halligan, to be United States Court of Appeals Judge for the DC Circuit. Republicans once again hid behind a cloture vote--filibuster, by another term--to prevent a simple up-or- down vote on this important nomination. They took the easy way out.

On the other hand, one Republican Senator did return to regular order. As is his right, he spoke for as long as he was able to speak. And that is a filibuster. After 12 hours standing and talking, this is how Senator Paul ended his filibuster:

I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom

Thurmond's record, but I've discovered there are some limits

to filibustering and I'm going to have to take care of one of

those in a few minutes here.

Well, I have been involved in a few filibusters, as Rand Paul was yesterday, and what I have learned from my experiences with talking filibusters is this: To succeed, you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder. It is obvious Senator Paul has both.

We should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a lot of judicial nominations. This can be a Senate where ideas are debated in full public view and obstruction happens in full public view as well or it can be a Senate where a couple Senators obstruct from behind closed doors without ever coming to the Senate floor.

Mr. President, forty-eight years ago today, a young man by the name of John Lewis set out on a march across Alabama, from Selma to Montgomery. By his side were a few hundred

freedom-loving men and women calling for an end to discrimination violence against African Americans.

Today, John Lewis is a distinguished member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but back then when he was a young civil rights leader, he was determined to fight injustice and force the United States to live up to its founding principle that all people are created equal.

I had the good fortune to go--not this year but a year or two ago-- down to Selma and participate in this reenactment. John Lewis was there, as I saw on TV a few days ago. It was a cold day when I went there, and you saw them all bundled a few days ago. And on the day of the march, you see the TV pictures of John Lewis with a long coat, and he had a backpack. I asked him what was in the backpack. He said, I thought I would be arrested and I would be put in jail. I had in that backpack an apple and a book I was reading.

After being viciously beaten, John Lewis doesn't know what happened to his apple, his book, or his backpack. But what a legend he has become. He wasn't arrested that day. Instead, John and the peaceful protesters by his side were met a few blocks into their march by State troopers with dogs, fire hoses, and clubs, and they used every one of them against these marchers. Many of the marchers, including John Lewis, were viciously beaten.

The terrible violence of that day, known as Bloody Sunday, was broadcast across the country. For the first time the bloody reality of the struggle for equal rights was beamed into America's living rooms. Bloody Sunday marked the turning point in the civil rights movement as Americans cried out against the injustice and bloodshed they saw on the television screens.

Later that month protesters finally completed that march from Selma to Montgomery, and more than 25,000 patriots converged on the Alabama State Capitol Building. From the steps of the Alabama capitol, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the power of peaceful resistance. This is what he said:

Selma, Alabama, became a shining moment in the conscience

of man. If the worst in American life lurked in its dark

street, the best of American instincts arose passionately

from across the nation to overcome it.

Six months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that is where Senator Thurmond, whom I had the good fortune of serving with here, took to the floor and gave that speech for 24 hours.

I may disagree with Strom Thurmond, but he had a right to talk. Rand Paul had a right to talk.

The Supreme Court last week considered striking sections of the law barring areas with a history of discrimination from changing voting practices without Federal approval. That is what the Voting Rights Act was all about. Critics say those protections are no longer necessary. But anyone who waited hours to cast a ballot in 2012 knows that is not true. A 102-year-old woman waited 8 hours to vote. And anyone who has watched the State legislature pass laws designed to intimidate eligible voters and keep the poor, minorities, and the elderly from the polls knows the fight for freedom is not over.

America has made great strides to eradicate racism, thanks to legends such as John Lewis. But, together, we must guard that progress with vigilance, keeping in mind the sacrifices made by so many 48 years ago today.

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit. At 10:30 there will be a vote on that nomination. We all know the weather is inclement. It is getting worse, as I saw coming in.

I have talked to Senator McConnell today. We are going to vote on the judge at 10:30. We have the Brennan nomination that we are going to finish this week. I have explained to the Republican leader that if they are going to filibuster that--and I understand that is what they are going to do--we could set up a 60-vote threshold filibuster, and then we can go ahead and have a vote on that today, allowing people to make proper travel arrangements. It is strictly up to the minority. We are ready to make that arrangement, if they so agree, because of the weather.

Mr. President, each day the world watches in horror at what is going on in Syria. Seventy thousand people have been killed as President Bashar al-Assad carries out a campaign of wanton violence against his own people.

These atrocities have gone on for far too long--seventy thousand dead Syrians. It is time for this awful dictator-tyrant to step down and allow his people to pursue a peaceful transition to the democracy which they crave. Assad grows increasingly desperate as rebels continue to gain ground despite the full force of Assad's military arsenal of planes, bombs, and rockets. President Assad should understand the world is watching his every action and will not tolerate his unforgivable slaughter of innocent citizens, including the potential future use of chemical weapons.

President Obama has made clear--and I support him 100 percent--the use of such chemical weapons would constitute a red line for the United States and for the national community. Rather than continue to kill his own people, Assad should end the bloodshed and relinquish power to Syria's citizens.

Mr. President, as America closely observes the unfolding of events in Syria and deals with varying threats around the world, it is crucial that President Obama has a seasoned national security team in place.

It is often said there is no substitute for experience, so it is natural that a 25-year CIA veteran, John Brennan, was reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee by a wide margin on a bipartisan vote.

Mr. Brennan is a highly qualified nominee and should be confirmed immediately. As Deputy National Security Adviser since 2009, John Brennan has been President Obama's chief homeland security and counterterrorism adviser. He has been at the forefront of every major national security decision made during the Obama administration. He is responsible for the White House response to pandemics, cyber threats, natural disasters, and terrorism attacks. He has played an instrumental role in finding Osama bin Laden, killing bin Laden, and, in effect, decimating al-Qaida.

His distinguished intelligence career began more than 30 years ago when he joined the CIA as a career trainee straight out of graduate school. Mr. Brennan worked his way up through the agency to serve in senior management roles in the CIA, including as Deputy Executive Director under George Tenant. Years spent working on covert and analytical missions and as chief of station in Saudi Arabia give him a comprehensive understanding of the CIA's capabilities and inner workings. His knowledge of the Middle East will be essential as we continue to work to defeat al-Qaida and other terrorist threats.

Mr. Brennan has distinguished himself outside of government as well. He spent 4 years in the private sector as president and CEO of the Analysis Corporation. His extensive intelligence background and executive experience uniquely qualify him to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

Just as CIA faces the challenges abroad, it also faces significant decisions about its future. John Brennan must guide the CIA through a series of considerations dealing with the Agency's relationship with our military, how the Agency should respond to the conclusions of a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on interrogation techniques and practices, and, finally, the Agency's response to demands for transparency. These considerations must not be made lightly, and John Brennan will give them the attention they deserve in his role as Director.

The Senate must also approach its duty to advise and consent with the solemnity it deserves. Unfortunately, the confirmation process has focused too much this year and the last two Congresses on partisan political considerations and not enough on the quality of the nominees.

I am very disappointed that I am forced to file cloture on John Brennan's nomination. What does that accomplish? If someone doesn't like him, come here and give a big speech, wave your arms, scream and shout, and vote against him. But why hold up the entire Senate over a meaningless vote?

My Republican colleagues have already obstructed several critical nominations this year. I hope that pattern of obstructionist behavior will not persist. I do hope for the sake of the country the obstruction of the last two Congresses will vanish. I feel very certain that in Mr. Brennan's case concerns for national security will outweigh the desire to grandstand for the weakened tea party.

I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Halligan nomination.

Madam President, we are now going to move to the Brennan matter. The Republican leader and I are trying to work something out. I have had numerous contacts from everybody about the problems with the weather. We are going to try to reach an agreement to move forward on Brennan and finish it today. I don't know if we can do that, but this is what we are trying to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would my friend yield without losing for the floor for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 43; that the cloture motion at the desk be reported; that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived; that there be 90 minutes for debate, with 30 minutes under the control of the chair and 1 hour under the control of the vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee, with 30 minutes of the vice- chair's time under the control of Senator Paul; that following the use or yielding back of that time on the nomination, the Senate proceed to vote on the cloture motion; that if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination, without intervening action or debate; further, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, before I hear from my friends on the consent, I have no problem if people want to talk for a long time, no problem. I have done it a time or two in my day. But I think that the rest of the body needs to know if we are going to finish tonight or tomorrow or the next day. So my consent request is pretty direct. We would have 90 more minutes of debate, an hour under the control of the Senator from Georgia, and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Feinstein or their designees.

Mr. President, I would simply say, if there is objection, we will come back tomorrow.

Yes, basically.

Mr. President, I am not in a position to talk for the Attorney General. We will just finish this matter tomorrow.

Mr. President, everyone should plan on coming tomorrow. We are through for the night.

Mr. President, before the Chaplain leaves the Chamber, I want to say something on behalf of all the Senators.

New Senators probably don't know him as well as those who have been here longer than the beginning of this year, but we are so fortunate to have this good man leading the Senate in our spiritual activities. He leads the prayer every morning. We have a ``Prayer Breakfast'' every Wednesday. And during that period of time when we don't see him, he is out counseling people who work here, including individual Senators.

During the last few years, my wife has been ill and has had a bad accident. He has been so in tune with her, making sure that we all are aware of how well she is doing. She has had a great recovery.

So on behalf of the whole Senate, I extend my appreciation to this good man--a man who was born with very little except a very good mother who taught him early on--and had a very keen intellect--that with his mind he could accomplish a great deal.

As far as memory, there is only one other person I have known in my lifetime who had a memory like his, and that was Robert Byrd, the longtime Senator from West Virginia. Chaplain Black has a remarkable memory of not only all the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, but poems. He has an intellect that is really amazing.

Again, I repeat, we are all so very fortunate that he is Chaplain of the Senate.

Mr. President, following leader remarks today, the Senate will be in morning business until 11:45 a.m., with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.

Following morning business the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 64, which is the committee funding resolution. At about 12:15 p.m. there will be a rollcall vote on Senator Paul's amendment striking funding for the National Security Working Group. Following the vote the Senate will be in recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

As a reminder, I filed cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit, and I will discuss that in just a few minutes. We are going to vote on her tomorrow.

Mr. President, four-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom William Gladstone said something we all have repeated many times: ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' By that measure millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve.

With 1 out of every 10 Federal judgeships today vacant, Americans can no longer rely on fairness and speedy trials. More than one-half of the Nation's population lives in a part of the country that has been declared a judicial emergency--more than one-half.

The high number of vacancies isn't due to a lack of qualified lawyers to take these jobs; it is due, instead, to

blatant partisanship. I am going to lay out in a few minutes what is remarkable.

President Obama's judicial nominees have waited on average four times longer to be confirmed than those nominated by the second George W. Bush. Even highly qualified nominees--nominees who are eventually confirmed unanimously or almost unanimously--routinely wait for months to be confirmed because of the delay tactics used by my Republican colleagues.

Tomorrow we are going to consider highly qualified Caitlin Joan Halligan to be a DC circuit judge. She has been waiting more than 2 years to be confirmed. She was nominated for the second time to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. This is a court that was formed some 65 years ago. It was done because the Supreme Court couldn't do the cases--they didn't have time to do them, and the circuit courts were overwhelmed with work they couldn't do.

Many consider the DC Circuit to be just a tiny notch below the Supreme Court. In fact, Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday many believe it is more important than the Supreme Court because they have such wide-ranging jurisdiction. Once they make a decision, rarely does the Supreme Court take up their cases. They consider complex appeals of Federal regulations, among other things, and have jurisdiction over vital national security challenges.

It is also one of the many courts in crisis across the country. Mr. President, 36 to 37 percent of the DC Circuit seats are vacant. There are four vacancies now. The last appointment to the DC Circuit was made in 2006. It is now 2013. In the years since the number of pending cases per judge has grown to almost 200 from a little over 100.

When Ms. Halligan was nominated to the DC Circuit in 2010, she was nominated to fill one of two vacancies. Many Republicans said they voted against her then because there was no need; the DC Circuit had enough judges. Now it is four short.

More than 2 years after she was first turned down, her nomination is again before the Senate, and the DC Circuit has four empty seats. The last time the Senate considered Ms. Halligan's nomination, some of my Republican colleagues claimed the DC Circuit didn't need any more judges, so they filibustered the confirmation. No one could credibly make that argument today. If my Republican colleagues choose to filibuster her confirmation a second time, their naked partisanship will certainly be exposed.

For example, Patricia Wald, who served on that court for 20 years-- for 5 years she was the chief judge--said of the confirmation process:

The constitutional system of nomination and confirmation

can work only if there is good faith on the part of both the

president and the Senate to move qualified nominees along,

rather than withholding consent for political reasons.

For example, if someone doesn't want to vote for her, tell them to vote no. Have them vote no. I invite them to vote no. But don't stop her from having an up-or-down vote.

I was very troubled with Justice Thomas, who was then a circuit court judge. A decision had to be made by me and many others: Should we allow Justice Thomas an up-or-down vote? The decision was made, yes, we should. He barely made it. He got 2 or 3 votes more than 50. It would have been so easy to stop that nomination, but it would have been the wrong thing to do. As bad as I feel he has been as a jurist, it doesn't matter. He should have had the ability to have an up-or-down vote. A Republican President sent that name forward, and he was entitled to a vote. That was a decision I and many other Democratic Senators made.

If my Republican colleagues don't like this woman, for whatever reason, vote against her. Don't stop her from having an up-or-down vote. A second partisan filibuster of this highly qualified nominee by my Republican colleagues would be in very bad faith. I repeat: If for some reason you don't like her, vote against her. Don't stop her from having a vote.

One qualified, consensus judicial nominee ought to be treated as another regardless of the political party of the President who made the nomination.

President Obama is the only President in 65 years--since this court was formed--to not have a single person put on the DC Circuit. That is how important this court is, and this is how Ms. Halligan and others have been stymied from getting on this court.

It is not because President Obama's nominees are anything but totally qualified. Ms. Halligan's colleagues have called her a brilliant legal mind. She has outstanding credentials, strong support from lawyers, a vast number of Republicans, former judges, law enforcement officials, and more than 20 former Supreme Court clerks from across the political spectrum.

She graduated with honors from Princeton and Georgetown Law School. She clerked for Justice Patricia Wald, whom I just quoted, and this woman was a judge in the DC Circuit for 20 years, 5 years as a chief judge.

If a truly exceptional candidate such as Caitlin Halligan isn't qualified to be a judge in the United States, I don't know who would be. I think it is very delicate ground Republicans are walking on if they think they can filibuster this woman and get away with it. It would be wrong. If they don't like her, vote against her.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.