Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, the Senate voted, by voice vote, to approve the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. As it always does, the NDAA included a number of important provisions, including critical authorizations for our troops in uniform, for essential defense programs to promote and protect our national security both at home and abroad, and for important programs that keep ours the greatest military in the world.

The conference report approved today also includes two important provisions which I was proud to support. The Dale Long Public Safety Officers Benefits Improvements Act will fill a gap in existing law and extend the Federal Public Safety Officers/Benefits program to paramedics and emergency medical technicians who work or volunteer for nonprofit ambulance services, and their families, when they are disabled or killed in the line of duty. And important measures relating to Department of Defense law enforcement officers are also included.

While I am pleased this conference report includes important elements such as these, I remain deeply concerned about several troubling provisions that remain in the law relating to the indefinite detention of individuals without charge or trial and the conference report drops the Senate amendment we adopted to protect against abuses. The indefinite detention and mandatory detention provisions that were enacted in last year's defense authorization bill undermine our Nation's fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, and I have worked to eliminate or fix these flawed provisions.

Earlier this month, during debate on the Senate bill, we took a positive step toward fixing these flawed provisions by adopting an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that I supported to clarify that our government cannot detain indefinitely any citizen or legal permanent resident apprehended in the United States. More than two- thirds of the Senate voted in favor of this amendment, and I viewed this as a constructive part of our efforts to undo some of the damage from last year's NDAA. During the Senate debate on the detention provisions this year, I stated again my belief that the vital protections of our Constitution extend to all persons here in the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Nonetheless, I voted for this amendment to affirm that indefinite detention has no place in our justice system.

Inexplicably, however, the Feinstein amendment was stripped from the final bill during conference negotiations between the House and Senate. Despite such broad Senate support for the Feinstein amendment, the conference report no longer expressly reaffirms that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in America cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Instead, we are left with the status quo of restrictions and prohibitions on the transfer of detainees that leaves us no closer to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo once and for all.

I have repeatedly said that I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial. I fought against the Bush administration policies that led to the current situation, with indefinite detention as the de facto policy. I opposed President Obama's executive order in March 2011 that contemplated indefinite detention, and I helped lead the efforts against the detention-related provisions in last year's NDAA. A policy of indefinite detention has no place in the justice system of any democracy--let alone the greatest democracy in the world.

The American justice system is the envy of the world, and a regime of indefinite detention diminishes the credibility of this great Nation around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for engaging in such conduct, and as new governments in the midst of establishing legal systems look to us as a model of justice. Indefinite detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I have pledged to uphold since my years as a prosecutor and in our senatorial oath to defend the Constitution. That is why I have opposed and will continue to oppose indefinite detention.

In addition to failing to rectify the indefinite detention provisions from last year's NDAA in the conference report, I also continue to be deeply disturbed by the mandatory military detention provisions that were included in last year's NDAA through Section 1022. In the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist threats, we should give our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need. These limitations abandon our full arsenal of powers. I remain concerned that the mandatory military detention requirements are overly broad and threaten core constitutional principles. Once sacrificed, our treasured constitutional protections are not easily restored. After all, the policy directive of this President can be undone by a future administration.

I find the detention provisions enacted through last year's NDAA and the failure to fix them this year deeply troublesome. I am also concerned about the extension of overly burdensome restrictions and conditions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo, even those who have already been found to have had no connection to terrorism. These provisions do not represent Vermont values, they do not represent American values, and they have no place in this world. As a result of the failure of the conferees to seriously address these fundamental wrongdoings and support the principles of our Constitution, I am unable to support final passage of this year's NDAA. Moving forward, as I did last year, I hope to foster a broader discussion about these issues and work to

make concrete changes to protect American values and champion the rule of law. We need a bipartisan effort to guarantee that the United States remains the model for the rule of law to the world.

There is one additional provision that has been excluded from this conference report that is of concern to me and a number of Senators and Congressmen. Both the House and Senate approved in their defense authorization bills language to freeze Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve manpower and force structure in the wake of the Air Force's announced intention to disproportionately target the National Guard as it prepared for Budget Control Act cuts. I joined Senator Graham, Representative Hunter and Representative Walz in leading a letter to the conferees signed by 87 members of Congress in support of continuing the freeze and preserving the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force which was included in the Senate-passed Defense Authorization Act.

I was surprised to see that the conferees rewrote these provisions, instead adopting in this conference report an Air Force proposal that had been neither reviewed nor debated by either chamber. While the final conference report does preserve the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, I believe it does not go far enough to protect the fundamental needs and strength of our Air National Guard.

I will continue to work with others here in Congress who believe, as I do, that the Guard represents much of what is best about our country's military.

Mr. President, the majority leader indicated that when we have the point of order, I or my designee be recognized. I ask that the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, be the designee.

Mr. President, I have spent time on the Senate floor this week talking about the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to address Hurricane Sandy. But today I remind the Congress of another impending disaster. Unlike Sandy, but exactly like the fiscal cliff crisis, this is a man-made disaster that can and must be averted by December 31. Unfortunately, this calamity has been artificially created and forced upon us by forces of stalemate and obstruction in the House of Representatives. This disaster involves the Farm Bill and what happens on the first of January if the House continues to hold the Senate-passed Farm Bill hostage.

The American people have heard again and again about the fiscal cliff. Today, once again, I am talking about the ``dairy cliff'' that awaits us if the House continues to block action on the Farm Bill. A full six months have passed since the Senate approved a strong Farm Bill with bipartisan support. We came together in the Senate and passed a 5-year Farm Bill that contains some of the most significant reforms in agricultural policy in a generation, while providing $23 billion in real deficit reduction.

After we passed the Senate Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee held a markup of their bill in July and passed a bipartisan bill out of Committee. Regrettably, that is where their work ended. The leadership in the House has refused to even bring their bill to the floor for debate, something that has not happened in the past 50 years.

Inaction by the House caused the Farm Bill to expire on September 30, terminating authorizations for a long list of important programs that benefit farmers, rural communities, consumers, and the 16 million Americans whose jobs depend on agriculture. Chairwoman Stabenow was on the floor earlier this week to point out the fact that is has been 80 days since the Farm Bill expired. That is 80 days that our farm families and small businesses have been waiting and holding their breath. This is artificially generating untold uncertainty that is costing farmers, consumers and our entire economy in very real and highly unpredictable ways. This not only is unprecedented, it is legislative malpractice. It threatens great harm to the Nation and the American people. And it is wrong. Yet the Nation, including Vermont dairy farmers, incredibly enough are now on the verge of plunging over the dairy cliff.

By failing to even consider a Farm Bill, the House leadership has driven us straight to the edge of this dairy cliff and now is refusing to turn the wheel or put a foot on the brake. This is a pointless and dangerous game of chicken, dragging all Americans along for the ride.

On January 1--a mere 11 days from now--the final shoe will drop when the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be required to implement what is known as ``permanent law'' for our Nation's dairy industry. The Secretary of Agriculture and his staff have been--quite literally-- dusting off old paper files and mimeographed notes from the 1940s and 50s to review the Agricultural Act of 1949. Without a new Farm Bill, on January 1 the Nation will be forced to revert to the parity pricing that was part of that long-ago law that was passed a few short years after the end of World War II.

The House's inaction on its own version of the Farm Bill, and its obstruction of the Senate bill--a Senate bill that saves taxpayers $23 billion--will force the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a law from the middle of the last century. This archaic law will force the Federal Government to spend billions of dollars to buy and store dairy products to help raise the price of fluid milk for dairy farmers. The Secretary will have to keep spending until he is able to raise the price of fluid milk by 60 or 70 percent. This is pointless and wasteful Federal spending. And it is even worse than that. Taking those products off the market will drive up consumer prices--prices that struggling families must pay, from coast to coast, just to put food on the table-- as early as next month. And that's not the end of this needless waste. The Department of Agriculture then will have to pay still more taxpayers' dollars to store all of these dairy products.

So rather than pass the Senate Farm Bill that saves $23 billion, the House is choosing to put the Secretary of Agriculture on a path to having to spend billions of dollars on dairy products, paying to store those products, and driving the price of milk through the ceiling for consumers. This is not even to mention the effects this could have on world prices and the harm it will cause for the vulnerable millions worldwide who rely on dairy products for their basic nutrition. That, in summary, is what the dairy cliff is all about.

Every 5 years for the last 60 years, Congress has passed a Farm Bill. Never before has the Farm Bill expired like this. And now on January 1 we will implement market-distorting dairy policy so old that 49 current members of the Senate--including the Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee--were not even born when it was signed into law by then-President Harry Truman.

Market chaos will erupt if we do not divert from this disastrous, reckless, needless, man-made path. Chaos, from the fact that farmers will be pressed to increase production at this inflated price, and chaos as we see an influx of imported dairy products as processors in other countries would divert products to the U.S. It is a rollercoaster of milk prices that, in the end, will benefit no one and hurt everyone. It is the kind of rollercoaster of dairy prices that the reforms we included in the Farm Bill are designed to address. As milk floods the market, the USDA will have to buy even more milk to keep up. Economists at the USDA say that implementation of permanent law for dairy would cost at least $12 to $15 billion per year. That does not include the cost of storing these dairy products. The USDA may not have enough storage space, and once USDA fills every warehouse at its storage facility in Kansas City, it will have to bring the rest to Washington and fill every closet at the Department of Agriculture's sprawling South Building with cheddar cheese and powdered milk.

The effects of these purchases will reverberate throughout the economy, and time is running out. The cascade of damage will be felt by our farmers, our food processors, our grocery stores, and by American consumers and taxpayers. It will also be felt by the 16 million Americans with jobs in agriculture. All at a time when they can least afford it.

Farmers in Vermont are very concerned that we are headed over this dairy cliff, and inaction on the Farm Bill has left the Nation's dairy farmers with no safety net, since the Milk Income Loss Contract Program expired on September 30.

The House of Representatives is not giving our farmers, and especially our dairy farmers, a fair deal. We have been sent here to do a job, and it is not asking too much that Congress pass a five year Farm Bill, and on time. We heard Senator Stabenow speaking earlier this week about the agricultural disaster programs that have expired, in a year when we have experienced record droughts, terrible freezes, and then historic damage to farms as Hurricane Sandy stormed through the Garden State.

Also at stake are eight important energy programs that have expired and programs to support America's organic farmers, specialty crop producers and beginning farmers. Close to my heart

as well are the vital international food assistance programs that serve as a core component of U.S. efforts to fight global hunger. These have expired as well.

In all, there are 37 programs that have expired, for absolutely no reason. Inaction on the Farm Bill by the House of Representatives is the perfect example of gridlock in Washington that so frustrates the American people. It threatens our economy. It threatens farmers. It harms the most vulnerable among us. And it is entirely pointless and avoidable.

For all their talk of cutting Federal spending and reducing the cost of entitlements, House leaders and the obstructive caucus to which they are catering, by blocking the Farm Bill are poised--by themselves--to increase the Federal deficit by at least $12 to $15 billion in 2013 alone. Let me say that again: these obstructionists in the House are threatening to drive up the deficit by $12 to $15 billion. While stalling and delaying work on the Farm Bill, saying they want further, draconian cuts in food assistance for the families across this land who are struggling the most, House leaders are about to drive us over this dairy cliff and exponentially increase government spending, hit consumers hard, and destroy the fragile economic gains we have made. This is not what the American people and our farmers deserve. Let's do what is right and pass the Senate Farm Bill into law--without further delay and without the political posturing.

Mr. President, over the last four years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations.

For example, until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W. Bush served as President, only 5 of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court nominees, and the Majority Leader has been forced to file cloture on 20 of them.

Federal district court judges are the trial court judges who hear cases from litigants across the country and preside over Federal criminal trials, applying the law to facts and helping settle legal disputes. They handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts and are critical to making sure our Federal courts remain available to provide a fair hearing for all Americans. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best, and have been confirmed quickly with that support. Never before in the 37 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything like what has happened in the last 4 years. Never before in the Senate's history have we seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Many are needlessly stalled and then confirmed virtually unanimously with no explanation for the obstruction. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-partisan positions. This is harmful to our Federal courts and the American people.

Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's controversial circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators. When we opposed Janice Rogers Brown, it was because of her long record on the California Supreme Court of deciding cases based on extreme views, and having argued that Social Security was unconstitutional. When we opposed Priscilla Owen, it was because her rulings on the Texas Supreme Court were so extreme that they drew the condemnation of even the conservative judges on that court.

On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home State Senators. Take the examples of Judge Robert Bacharach and William Kayatta, two consensus circuit nominees who have the support of their Republican home State Senators. Both these nominees received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating, that of unanimously ``Well Qualified.'' They have strong bipartisan support, and unimpeachable credentials, and there is no reason why they should not have been confirmed months ago. Republicans continue to stall them without final confirmation votes approximately 8 months after they were considered and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The irony and dangerous new development is that neither of these nominees faces any real Republican opposition. Senator Coburn, one of Judge Bacharach's home State Senators, has said: ``[Judge Bacharach] has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' Still, Senate Republicans refuse to allow for a vote on his nomination. The same also applies to Richard Taranto, who was reported more than eight months ago to a vacancy on the Federal Circuit by voice vote and faces no Republican opposition. This also applies to William Kayatta of Maine, who was reported nearly eight months ago and has the support of his two home State Republican Senators.

It makes no sense for Senate Republicans to continue filibustering these nominations, but it fits with their track record over the last 4 years. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed but as soon as President Obama was elected they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination. Judge David Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and was supported by Senator Dick Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. They delayed his confirmation for 7 months. Senate Republicans then proceeded to obstruct and delay just about every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 10 of them. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit and Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, and Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal Circuit for 3 months.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the

median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican obstruction.

This unprecedented and meritless obstruction means that when the Senate adjourns, Senate Republicans will have blocked more than 40 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees from being confirmed.

This obstruction is also why a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies has persisted for over 3\1/2\ years. While such tactics are bad for the Senate, they are also bad for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has been historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. In fact, five of the judicial nominees pending on the Senate calendar on whom Republicans refuse to allow a vote would fill judicial emergency vacancies.

For almost 4 years now, ever since President Barack Obama took office, we have heard the same spurious arguments from Senate Republicans for why they refuse to help our Federal courts function. Senate Republicans claim that we have not confirmed more judges because President Obama has not made a sufficient number of nominations. It is Senate Republicans themselves, and their unwillingness to work with a President who has reached out to them to submit recommendations and to work with him that has delayed many nominations.

Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has worked hard to solicit recommendations from home State Senators, including those from the other party. This President has consistently selected qualified, mainstream nominees. For the judicial vacancies in States with two Republican Senators, just 21 percent have a nominee. Four such vacancies exist in Texas--including three judicial emergency vacancies. This has prompted a retired Federal judge in Hawaii to move to Texas to help the overburdened judges with their caseload. I urge Senate Republicans to do a better job providing consensus recommendations and fulfilling their own constitutional responsibility to ``advise'' the President on nominations and work with President Obama to fill these vacancies.

At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans now deliberately refuse to vote on several judicial nominees who could and should be confirmed in order to consume additional time the following year confirming these nominees. At the end of 2009, they left 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar without a vote. Two of those nominations were returned to the President, and it subsequently took 9 months for the Senate to take action on the other 8. This resulted in the lowest 1- year confirmation total in at least 35 years. For the last 2 years, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar at the end of each year. It then took nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm these nominees. This year they are insisting on leaving 11 judicial nominees without action and another 4 have had hearings but Senate Republicans refused to expedite their consideration.

Senate Republicans claim that their delays and obstruction should be excused because, despite their opposition, the Senate confirmed the President's two Supreme Court Justices. Senate Republicans ignore the fact that during President Bush's first 4 years 205 circuit and district court nominees had been confirmed, and that judicial vacancies were reduced to as low as 28. During his second term, vacancies were reduced to 34. Vacancies have stood at nearly or above for most of President Obama's first four years and will not dip below 60. Vacancies remain more than twice what they were at the end of President Bush's first term. The 173 judges that we have been able to confirm fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term. Moreover, when the Senate confirmed two Justices during President Clinton's first term and President George H.W. Bush's term, the Senate also confirmed 200 and 192 circuit and district nominees, respectively. Their obstruction of needed confirmations cannot be justified on account of the two Supreme Court vacancies.

Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order and usually confirmed four to six nominees per week, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district nomination is stalled 4.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration, and the average circuit court nomination is stalled on average 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Nor has any other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee.

No one is happier than I that a dozen district court nominees will be confirmed during this lame duck session but that is hardly something justifying Republican chest beating. What it starkly demonstrates is that they have been stalling consensus nominees for months without cause. All of these nominees could and should have been confirmed before the August recess and should have been at work administering justice for the American people. In most other years, like in 2008, judicial nominees, especially those who are qualified, consensus nominees with bipartisan support and the support of their home State Senators, are confirmed before the election recess. They are not stalled and not dragged over into a lame duck session after the election. This is not success, unless you believe that perpetuating vacancies and forcing hardworking Americans to wait even longer to have their day in court is something of which to be proud.

Senate Republicans have also forced the Majority Leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already more than 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Barely 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed, compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's first term nominees.

While this is not even close to a full account of the precedents broken in the last 4 years, the record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Pretending it has not taken place is an insult to the American people. The American people know better. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies. . . . This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads. . . . There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address the judicial vacancy crisis, Senate Republicans continued their obstruction of judicial confirmations.

Today, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote on 3 but only 3 of the 14 judicial nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar.

Judge Malachy Mannion is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he currently serves as the Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge. He has been a Magistrate Judge in that District for over 10 years, where he has presided over 104 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to his appointment as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, Judge Mannion served as Federal prosecutor for over 10 years, where he rose to become the Chief of the Office's Organized Crime Enforcement Task Force. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave him its highest possible rating of ``Well Qualified.'' His nomination has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago by voice vote.

Matthew Brann is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He has been in private practice for over 2 decades, where he specializes in complex corporate and commercial transactions, real estate, probate, and estate planning. He has tried 20 cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision. He has the support of his home State Senators, and he was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote 5 months ago.

Judge Jon Tigar is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Tigar is currently a Superior Court Judge for Alameda County, where he has presided over 175 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. He previously spent 10 years as a litigator in private practice at two prominent law firms in San Francisco. He earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable Robert S. Vance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave him its highest possible rating of ``Well Qualified.'' His nomination has the support of his home State Senators, and he was approved by the Judiciary Committee more than four months ago by voice vote.

After today's vote, there will still be 11 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar, 6 of whom were voted out of the Judiciary Committee before the August recess. There is no reason why we cannot confirm all of them today. I have also been urging Republicans to expedite consideration of the 4 judicial nominees who participated in hearings last Wednesday. That would lead to 11 more confirmations before the Senate adjourns to help address the judicial vacancies that currently exist in our Federal courts.

If we adjourn today without confirming these additional nominees, we will leave those 11 vacancies and 5 emergency vacancies open for even longer, and there will be at least 80 vacancies when President Obama begins his second term. Recall that during President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from January, 2005 through January, 2009, vacancies never exceeded 60. So far during President Obama's first 4 years in office and as far into the future as we can see there have never been less than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. This is a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people.

I commend President Obama for nominating such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first 4 years, President Obama has appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just 4 years, President Obama has also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. Americans can be proud of President Obama's efforts to increase diversity in the Federal judiciary and to ensure that it better reflects all Americans.

I hope that next year, and in the next 4 years, Senate Republicans will end their misguided and harmful obstruction and work with us in a bipartisan manner to do what is right for the country. President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, and the Senate should consider them in regular order, without unnecessary delays. That is what we had done for as long as I have served in the Senate, whether the nominations came from a Democratic or a Republican president. We should work together to restore and uphold the best traditions of the Senate.

Mr. President, I have been saying for weeks and months that we are overdue to pass into law the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which the Senate approved in April with 68 bipartisan votes. I am disappointed that the House still has not picked up this bipartisan effort and that we are not getting the job done this year. I want everyone to know that I will be back next year, and we will get it done.

Just yesterday we were reminded again why this legislation is so important. In Colorado, a man just released from jail on domestic violence charges shot his way into a house, murdering his ex- girlfriend, and her sister, and her sister's husband, before killing himself. We have seen enough horrific violence. It is past time to act.

The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It will help

us go further to prevent domestic and sexual violence and to provide services and support to all victims.

For several weeks, I have been advocating a compromise on a key provision aimed at addressing the epidemic of domestic violence against native women. I want to compliment my partner on this bill, Senator Crapo, who has been working hard to try to bridge the divide and address concerns with the provision in our bill that gives limited jurisdiction to tribal courts to make sure that no perpetrators of domestic violence are immune from prosecution. Senator Crapo has pushed hard and has indicated a willingness to compromise significantly, as have I. Sadly, others have continued to draw lines which would ultimately deny assistance to some of the most vulnerable victims. That is unacceptable.

I appreciate that there have at last been some renewed discussions about this bill in the House of Representatives but that is not enough. The only way to reauthorize VAWA this year is for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill. If the House Republican leadership refuses to do that in the final days of this Congress, it is a shame.

I remain steadfast in my resolve to get this done and pass a good VAWA bill that protects all victims. I know Senator Crapo shares my resolve. I know every woman in the Senate and many other Senators and House members share our resolve. I know President Obama and Vice President Biden share our resolve.

We will be back next year. We will introduce a good bill, and we will pass it through the Senate. We will continue our discussions, and we will work tirelessly to have a good bill enacted into law. This is not the end of our efforts to renew and improve VAWA to more effectively help all victims of domestic and sexual violence.

We know that the epidemic of violence against native women is appalling, with a recent study finding that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. We know that immigrant women are particularly vulnerable, with their immigration status another weapon that abusers can use to keep power and prevent reporting. We know that some victims cannot access needed services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We know that women and girls on college campuses are too much at risk, and more must be done to protect them. The list goes on.

We have shown a willingness to compromise but we must make progress on all of these issues. We must make things better, and never make things worse, for the most vulnerable of victims.

The community of advocates and service providers who work every day with victims of these terrible crimes is inspiring. It was their advice on the real needs of real victims that shaped this legislation, and they have fought with us every day to get this bill enacted. I want them to know how much I value the work they do and that I will not abandon their cause. We will continue working together, and we will reauthorize VAWA.

We have seen enough violence. If we cannot get the Leahy-Crapo bill over the finish line this year, we will come back next year, and we will get it done. I look forward to other Senators joining us as we continue this vital effort.

Mr. President, we are enacting legislation to update the Video Privacy Protection Act, VPPA, in order to permit the ongoing sharing of video viewing information via the Internet. This bill contains important digital privacy provisions that I authored in the Senate to ensure consumer control over video viewing information.

During my more than three decades in the Senate, I have worked to protect the privacy rights of American consumers. In doing so, I have joined with Democrats and Republicans alike to help guarantee the right to privacy for every citizen. Last month, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported legislation that included these video privacy updates with strong bipartisan support. I commend Senator Franken for his exceptional work on this measure as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy and the Law. He held

the hearings and helped the committee to develop the proposal contained in this bill.

I congratulate Representative Goodlatte for his work on this bill. He began the effort in the House to update the VPPA and has worked with me to reach this final product. I look forward to working with him to update another critical digital privacy law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, in the new year. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported a good proposal to ensure a warrant requirement for e-mails and we should move forward quickly to enact it.

The bill we enact today takes several important steps to accommodate new technologies, like video streaming and social networking, while also helping to protect digital privacy rights in cyberspace. First, the bill updates the Video Privacy Protection Act to keep pace with how most Americans view and share videos today--on the Internet. This bill will allow American consumers, if they wish, to share their movie and television watching experiences through social media, while also ensuring that the important privacy protections in this law are not diminished.

Second, to protect the privacy of American consumers, the bill retains key privacy protections already in the VPPA which require that consumers ``opt-in'' to the sharing of their video viewing information. The bill similarly retains the requirement in current law that consumers provide informed written consent to share video viewing information. Moreover, to ensure that consumers have control over their own video viewing data, the bill provides that consumers may ``opt-in'' to the information sharing on an ongoing basis for a period of up to 2 years at a time. Consumers may ``opt-out'' of the information sharing at any time.

Lastly, the bill requires that the opportunity for a consumer to withdraw consent to the disclosure of video viewing information must be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner. This provision requires a video tape service provider to provide one of two opportunities for the consumer to withdraw consent: on a case-by-case--i.e., per title-- basis, or to withdraw consent for ongoing disclosures. The bill does not, however, specify where on a Web site, or in what form, the opportunity to withdraw consent should be provided.

Like many Americans, I am concerned about the growing and unwelcome government intrusions into our private lives in cyber space. Last month, the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly passed my legislative proposal to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to require a search warrant in order for the government to obtain our e- mail and other electronic communications stored with third-party service providers. When we worked to enact ECPA in 1986, no one could have imagined the way the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today. But, after three decades, this critical privacy law has been outpaced by the explosion of new technologies and the expansion of the government's surveillance powers.

My Electronic Communications Privacy Act updates would revive and enhance the privacy protections afforded to Americans' e-mails and other electronic communications by establishing a warrant requirement for all e-mail content when stored with a third-party service provider or ``in the cloud.'' There are limited exceptions to this requirement under current law. I have worked to make certain that these updates carefully balance privacy interests, the needs of law enforcement, and the interest of our thriving American tech sector.

When the Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, we did so with strong, bipartisan support. Today, we continue that long and proud tradition of coming together across Chamber and party affiliation by enacting this update to the VPPA. My legislative reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act are likewise deserving of such broad and bipartisan support. I urge us to join together in the Congress to enact these important privacy updates without delay.

Madam President, I wish to praise the senior Senator from Maryland. I was out here listening to what she said but not just the words. She believes them. It is a passion. She cares.

She and I have served on the Appropriations Committee for about 100 or 200 years, I think. She was a child when she went there, but we have served there together. We both have lost one of our dearest friends, Senator Inouye.

But over and over in that committee, I have heard her stand and say: People are involved. These are human beings, and we ought to stand up for them.

As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, because she represents New York State, when we have a disaster of this unbelievable amount, the whole Nation is supposed to come together. We are the United States of America. We are not the State of New York, the State of Maryland, the State of Vermont; we are the United States of America.

We have come together as a country. Whether the disaster has been in California, on the east coast or in Southern States or in the West, we come together, and that is what we are trying to do. I would defy any Senator who has worried about coming together to help these people to go to one of the homes. Go to one of the homes on Long Island. Go to one of the homes that has been devastated. Go to one of the businesses where we have a couple who spent their whole life building up their business, hoping to have something to leave to their children, and now they are looking at rubble. Come on. These are real people. This is the United States of America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico on the Senate floor, and I yield to him.

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

Mr. President, I know we have Senators who have talked about bringing amendments to the floor. I know the distinguished majority leader is trying to get a finite list and a time to vote on them. I hope that can be done. I hope Senators who have amendments will bring them up, debate them, and vote them up or down so we can get on with this bill.

If you are a person whose home has been devastated or your children's school has been destroyed in this storm or your business is only a pile of rubble--those people really find it pretty difficult to see us, whether it is the U.S. Senate or the other body, standing around saying we may have amendments, we may not have amendments, we may have something that is not germane to what we have here but we want to make a message amendment. They are saying: We are Americans--we are Americans and we are suffering. Do something for us, just as this body always has. Whether the disaster has been in the Midwest, the West, the Northeast, the Southeast, or the South, we have come together for our fellow Americans.

Time is running out, and we should get moving. I urge Senators, bring your amendments. If you really think they have merit, if you really think they have anything to do with this disaster relief, if you really think they are going to be able to help, bring them in and let's vote them up, vote them down. But let's not just sit here thinking that maybe we can wait longer.

We get paid our salaries. I don't know of any Senator who has lost his or her home, certainly not his or her business. They are still here, and they still get paid every couple of weeks. That is not the case for hundreds of thousands of people. Let's start acting to take care of them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Would the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that the Senator is not going to seek action on it now, it is simply to file it?

I thank my distinguished colleague.

We have shared this colloquy on two different occasions. I thank the Senator.

I am only going to make a short unanimous consent request, if I could.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the distinguished Senator's remarks the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, is the substitute now pending?

Mr. President, I withdraw the pending substitute amendment No. 3338.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

I am pleased to work with Senator Lautenberg on this

issue. New Jersey, New York, and other States throughout the region were devastated by Hurricane Sandy. In particular, flood-prone areas and the coastline experienced severe damage. That is why the Supplemental Appropriations bill includes funding and language to improve damaged projects, construct new projects to prevent future damage, and to authorize projects in the study phase for construction, provided that the Corps of Engineers determines doing so would cost- effectively reduce flood and storm damage risks.

Yes. The language does not intend for the Corps of Engineers to disqualify studies under consideration for construction authorization based on increased costs and decreased economic benefits as a result of Hurricane Sandy. In addition, the term ``cost- effectiveness'' does not refer to the benefit to cost ratio typically used by the Corps of Engineers.

Yes. The Corps is directed to submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations on its proposed process for determining cost-effectiveness, in accordance with the aforementioned intentions, no later than 45 days following enactment of this Act.

Great Lakes Dredging Funding

Yes, that is correct. The Supplemental Appropriations bill includes some funding related to natural disasters other than Hurricane Sandy.

The bill does not define ``natural disaster,'' but the near record water level lows in the Great Lakes caused by drought and unusually warm weather leading to increased evaporation are certainly contributing to significant drought-like consequences at Great Lakes ports and harbors.

Yes. The funding is tied to estimates of natural disaster damages relayed to Congress by the Corps, however, the funding is not earmarked to specific projects. The Corps utilizes this funding to restore essential project functions based on the Corps' priority of the damages. In that context, Great Lakes ports and harbors would be eligible for the funding.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will agree to S. Res. 618, a resolution observing the 100th birthday of civil rights icon Rosa Parks, and commemorating her legacy. It is hard to believe that 57 years have passed since Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus, a heroic act for a young woman from Tuskegee, AL, who joined so many in the fight for civil rights. I am proud of the progress this country has made toward equality for all, in large part thanks to the work and inspiration of leaders like Rosa Parks, although we as a Nation have more work to do.

Rosa's brave act of defiance inspired a city-wide boycott and national movement, and she remains an important symbol of the civil rights movement to this day. Her legacy reminds Vermonters and Americans all over the country that one brave voice or action can shine a light on injustice and challenge society to accept nothing less than freedom and equality for all mankind.

In 2006 I was proud to work to reauthorize one of the most important civil rights laws in our history and to have that voting rights legislation bare Rosa Parks' name. Unfortunately, some are trying to overturn that protective and important law despite the continuing threat to the right to vote. As we commemorate her birth 100 years ago, I hope we can all agree that threats to civil rights are not a relic of the past. To honor Rosa Parks' memory, we must continue to fight to ensure that all Americans can vote and have their vote counted. I thank Senator Levin for submitting this resolution and am proud to join him in commemorating the legacy of Rosa Parks.

Mr. President, first, I wish to join my thoughts on those of the two Senators from Connecticut and the Senator who just spoke, Senator Blumenthal. He and I talked this weekend during these terrible times, and I told him the Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice, on behalf of all the victims, were standing by to help them in any way they can.

Mr. President, today is the first day since Hawaii became a State that it is not represented by Dan Inouye, either as a House Member or as Senator.

As I look at my dear friend's desk with the traditional white flowers, I can't tell you how much it pains me. He was one of the greatest Members of this body ever to have served and a dear friend to so many of us. He was perhaps the best role model for public service any American could ask for. Senator Inouye's story is one of great passion for his people, commitment to his calling of public service, and dedication to finding a better way forward for all Americans, a true patriot.

A soldier in World War II, a veteran of the Armed Forces, he fought for the freedom of the Nation he so loved and believed in. The Nation finally recognized that, making him a recipient of our Congressional Medal of Honor.

As a representative of Hawaii, he dedicated his career to establishing and solidifying a place for his State in Washington so generations of Hawaiians to come might know the benefits of what he did not have, Federal support for such important causes such as higher education, transportation, health care, and security. His advocacy was never in vain, and the people of Hawaii benefited immensely from his service.

But I think his efforts to bring people together is unmatched. The grace with which he conducted his work should inspire all of us, as it does me. He was the man who could reach out to both sides of the aisle, make friends and make peace. He poured his heart and soul into the Senate. He was first and foremost a person of the Senate, and we all felt his passion and concern for the work of this body. There is no doubt he is going to be greatly missed in these halls. He was a mentor. He was a friend. We traveled together. Our wives were friends.

The reason I didn't speak last night, I opened my desk and looked again--the desk I have now, this seat, I inherited from Dan Inouye--and his name is inscribed in it. As the distinguished Acting President pro tempore knows, we inscribe our names in our desks, and Dan Inouye's is there. When I looked at that last night I was overcome with emotion and so I did not speak then.

I realize I am delaying things a couple of minutes here, but when I think of my friend and I think of his name, I remember he said he wanted to be remembered as having represented his people and all Americans honestly and to the best of his ability. He filled that. He filled that. We all know he gave his everything to the Senate, and his legacy is for us to continue the work he has done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I assume that we are going back and forth.