Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we will vote on five outstanding judicial nominees to our Federal district courts. I thank the majority leader for filing for cloture on these nominees so we can clear the backlog that still remains on our executive calendar as we move toward the end of the 113th Congress. After we vote on these nominees today, however, we will still have 21 judicial nominees pending on the executive calendar to serve on district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The five nominees the Senate will vote on today are all well- qualified lawyers and there should be no controversy about their confirmation. Four of these nominees: Pamela Pepper to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Brenda Sannes to the Northern District of New York, Madeline Arleo to the District of New Jersey, and Wendy Beetlestone to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were reported by the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote and have the support of their home State senators.

The fifth nominee, Victor Bolden, who has been nominated to the District of Connecticut, also has the strong support of his home State Senators, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Bolden's credentials are impeccable. Since 2009, he has served as corporation counsel for the city of New Haven, CT. Prior to joining city government, Mr. Bolden served as general counsel and assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. He has also served in private practice as an associate and counsel at the law firm of Wiggin & Dana in New Haven, CT. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Bolden began his legal career at the American Civil Liberties Union as a staff attorney and as the Marvin Karpatkin Fellow.

During the Judiciary Committee executive business meeting where Mr. Bolden's nomination was considered, the ranking member commented that he was troubled by the nominee's views on racial classifications and his advocacy on affirmative action. The ranking member also noted that he did not agree with the nominee's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Finally, the ranking member criticized Mr. Bolden because he argued the nominee ``took a narrow and legally incorrect view of individual rights under the Second Amendment in an amicus brief in Heller.'' The committee voted to report Mr. Bolden's nomination favorably on a 10-to-8 party-line vote.

Let me address each of the issues raised by Ranking Member Grassley. First, in cases where Mr. Bolden has advocated for a specific position in which a Senator may disagree, Mr. Bolden was representing a client and not expressing his own personal views. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have stated repeatedly that attorneys should not be equated with the position of their clients. Our legal system is predicated upon zealous advocacy for both sides of an issue or matter. Without this, our justice system would not function. Victor Bolden understands the difference between the role of an advocate versus the role of a judge. In response to a question for the record from Senator Grassley on applying Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents, Mr. Bolden testified: ``I am fully committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect, regardless of any personal feelings I might have.''

Second, not only has Mr. Bolden testified under oath about this distinction, but he has shown that he would apply and implement orders from a higher court. In Ricci v. DeStefano, Mr. Bolden represented the city of New Haven as corporation counsel. In that case, several White firefighters and one

Hispanic firefighter sued the city of New Haven in 2003, alleging racial discrimination after the city threw out the results of an exam used for promotion of the city's firefighters. The test results had shown that White firefighters had outperformed minority applicants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against New Haven and held that the city's abandonment of the test results constituted intentional discrimination against the White firefighters. Mr. Bolden subsequently helped ensure that the city complied with the Court's order and defended the decision against collateral attacks.

To his credit, Mr. Bolden did such an outstanding job of ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's decision that the named plaintiff-- firefighter Frank Ricci--wrote a letter strongly supporting Mr. Bolden's nomination. Let me quote some of this letter:

It was apparent to me from our initial dealings whether as

a plaintiff or union representative that the Mayor had made a

great choice in the selection of the new Corporation Counsel.

Although Victor represented the City and therefore would be

naturally presumed an adversary it never felt that way.

Through the remainder of the litigation from the U.S. Supreme

Court decision to the final judgments Victor displayed and

has always displayed the attributes one could hope for in a

jurist. He's always conscious that there are real people

affected by decisions that are made but he is also very

deliberate in those decisions with an unwavering commitment

to the law. Victor is a consummate professional with

unquestionable integrity. These observations are not limited

to me but have been the topic of many discussions between me

and others, including those inside and outside the fire

service. I cannot think of anyone who would make a finer

addition to our federal judiciary than him. And I could not

have a greater honor than to write this correspondence

supporting that.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full letter of support.

Third, Mr. Bolden's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in a 2013 editorial were shared by a substantial number of legal scholars and Senators, including me. As I have said, the Shelby County decision was a dreadful decision and wrongly decided. A narrow majority of the Court decided to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress showing that racial discrimination in voting still occurs. Instead, the Court chose to effectively strike down the heart of the Voting Rights Act by holding that the coverage formula for preclearance was outdated. I authored a bipartisan bill along with Congressmen Sensenbrenner and John Lewis on this, but to this date, not a single Senate Republican has signed on. In short, I believe that Victor Bolden's views on voting rights are well within the mainstream. Nevertheless, Mr. Bolden has stated for the Record that he ``would faithfully apply Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent'' on the issue.

Lastly, Mr. Bolden has been criticized for authoring an amicus brief on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in District of Columbia v. Heller. At the time Mr. Bolden authored the amicus brief, the controlling precedent in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence was United States v. Miller, which did not hold that there was an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a ``well regulated Militia.'' Accordingly, the brief that Mr. Bolden filed actually cited to Supreme Court precedent that was controlling on the issue at the time. Now that the Supreme Court has decided Heller, Mr. Bolden has testified under oath that he ``would faithfully apply the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and other Second Amendment jurisprudence'' and all other areas of the law.

Senators should not vote against Mr. Bolden for advocating on behalf of a client using the applicable Supreme Court precedent at the time. I have heard that some Senators have been continuing to distort Mr. Bolden's record on the Senate floor during his cloture vote. I can only hope that these distortions and fabrications are dismissed as they rightly should be.

Mr. Bolden is an outstanding nominee and a substantial majority of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has also rated him ``well qualified.'' I wholeheartedly support this nominee and would strongly urge my fellow Senators to do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today the Senate will finally act to send legislation to the President's desk that will ensure that Vermonters and 1.5 million Americans across the country will continue to receive satellite television programming at the end of the year. The legislation reauthorizes the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA, which creates a distant signal statutory license to receive broadcast television signals via satellite. This legislation is the product of four committees in the Senate and

House. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked with Senator Grassley on the copyright aspects of this legislation to focus on preventing disruption to consumers. Because of our work together, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported its portion of this bill on June 26 and all of these provisions are in the bill the Senate will pass today.

Sending this bill to the President shows the American people that Congress can come together in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to pass legislation. Vermonters who rely on the distant signal license for their broadcast programming can rest easy today knowing that their existing television stations will not disappear from their screens come December 31.

Over the years I have worked on the Judiciary Committee to ensure that all Vermonters have access to Vermont broadcast television stations. In previous reauthorizations, including STELA's most recent reauthorization in 2010, I have made it a priority to ensure that every Vermont satellite subscriber has the option to watch Vermont-focused programming. Local broadcast stations play an important role in informing and fostering a sense of community. This is particularly true in a small State like mine. I am proud to have made sure that residents in every corner of Vermont will continue to have a choice to see Vermont news.

The Judiciary Committee portion of this legislation reauthorizes the distant signal license for another 5 years. It is narrowly crafted to ensure that consumers do not see any disruption in service, but also designed to make sure that content holders who are paid royalties under this license continue to receive an annual cost of living adjustment beginning from the rate that is currently in place. The distant signal license is important to consumers. I recognize, however, that compulsory licenses do not always reflect the true market value of the content that is being licensed. The mechanisms to modestly increase the rate when appropriate remain in place. Through the Senate Judiciary Committee process, I worked with Senator Durbin, who offered a non- controversial amendment to expand the carriage of low power television stations on cable systems. I was happy to support this amendment because improving the reach of these stations so that more viewers can see them will help to expand the diversity of voices available on cable. That is as important in Burlington, VT as it is in Chicago.

I share the concerns of several Senators who wanted this legislation to do more to promote competition. It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives would not agree to the Senate's stronger language in this regard, but I was willing to compromise because the threat of letting the law expire was too great. The language in the bill we will pass today is better than what was in the original House bill. Overall, this legislation is a win for viewers in Vermont and across the country. I look forward to the President signing it into law.

Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the majority leader. He and I have been friends for decades. He worked with me and was in touch with me throughout the recent effort on the NSA reform bill, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. He knew we had cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, from across the political spectrum. This was an effort to do what was best for America and do it at a time when we would not be under urgent deadlines. Several of the authorities we were trying to amend expire on June 1 of next year.

We had a piece of legislation that began in the House of Representatives by a Republican chairman. We added to the bill in the Senate. There was a very clear signal from the House of Representatives that if we had passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 here in the Senate, they would have taken it up and passed it. We would be enacting legislation that would improve not only the security of Americans, but also the privacy and individual liberties of Americans. And we would not do it under a deadline. So it was unfortunate last night that there was a partisan effort to stop it. There was some of the worst fear- mongering I have heard on this floor in 40 years. But I say this as more of a way to thank the distinguished majority leader for his steadfast support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Republican leader yield for a question?

The minority leader will not yield for a question, but I would note, based on his concerns about the bipartisan piece of legislation regarding the NSA and others and his concern about ISIL--which we all share--that the NSA and all of our intelligence community had every single tool the Republican leader advocates for, while ISIL built up its strength, while ISIL had Iraq's army flee from them while they went forward. With every single one of those elements the Republican leader advocates for, there was not one single alarm bell that rang. So let's deal with the facts and not hypotheses.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has the majority of votes in this body for the Keystone Pipeline, and that is a compliment to her hard work in getting from a minority of votes to a majority of votes.

I will not be one of them, as she knows, because I represent what is the view of my fellow constituents in Vermont. I strongly oppose the fast-tracking of this process.

This pipeline poses considerable safety and environmental risks here in the United States, and it threatens the natural landscapes that are in the heartland of America. We feel this pipeline is one of the most striking examples of the unquenchable thirst for oil that is destroying our environment. We feel that destruction is going to move forward unless and until we get a comprehensive national energy plan. This pipeline will not lead us towards that. It leads us to an energy policy of the past instead of a sustainable energy future, while simultaneously accelerating our impact on the climate. These tar sands require an energy-intensive process, complete with pollutants and harmful emissions to get them out of the ground, to extract them, and to refine them.

We should not rubberstamp a project like this that poses such serious risks to the Nation's and the world's environment, and to our communities' safety. I was astounded by the fact that in its first year of operation the existing Keystone Pipeline--billed as you recall as the safest pipeline in history when it was built just a few years ago in 2010--spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. That is more than any other pipeline in U.S. history.

The worrisome part about these spills is that tar sands oil is harder to clean up. Ask the communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. It has cost more than $1 billion so far--$1 billion so far--to clean up a tar sands spill in 2010. Now, more than 4 years later, it is still a mess, and landowners continue to wait for help in restoring their property and to rebuild the ravaged pipeline.

We do not need more empty assurances from the oil industry. Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe. We heard similar promises from BP, which insisted that it could handle an oil spill in a deep-water drilling operation. The images from both of those spills are still fresh in our memories.

I realize that proponents argue that this pipeline will create jobs and will

help our energy security here in the United States. But this pipeline will bypass refineries in the Midwest instead of heading to American gas stations to help lower the price of gas here at home. It will head straight for the coast so the oil can be used in export markets, pumped onto ships headed for China. That may be good news for the Chinese, but it is not good news for the American people who are stuck with the safety risks, the health challenges, future environmental disasters, and the rapid acceleration of our contribution to climate change.

These facts are clear: The Keystone pipeline significantly worsens the problem of carbon pollution, and it is not in our national interest. The Presidential Permit should be denied, not fast-tracked by Congress here today.

So I will not be among the majority who will vote for it today.

USA Freedom Act

On another matter, while I have the floor, the distinguished Republican leader spoke against the USA FREEDOM Act earlier this morning. Unfortunately, he was too busy to respond to a couple of simple questions, even though he was asked to. But I would note that last year, Americans learned that section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act had been secretly interpreted for years to allow the bulk collection of telephone records. Unlike the comments made earlier that there were no hearings on this, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 came about after numerous congressional hearings, including six--six--public hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At least two panels of independent experts have concluded that the bulk collection program has not been essential or even a key part of keeping our country safe. We now have wide bipartisan agreement in the Senate and the House that the bulk phone records collection program is not essential, it violates Americans' privacy, and it has to end. So the question before Congress is not whether to end the program, but when and how.

The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 ends the NSA's bulk collection program, but does so responsibly. The bill contains key reforms to safeguard Americans' privacy by prohibiting the indiscriminate collection of their data. It also provides for greater accountability and transparency of the government's surveillance programs, and it improves the FISA Court. The bill also ensures that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep our country safe.

This legislation is the result of several months of intense discussions and deliberations with the intelligence community and stakeholders across the political and economic spectrum. It has the unprecedented support of the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, American technology companies, and privacy and civil liberty groups ranging from the ACLU and EEF to the NRA and TechFreedom, as well as the Director of NSA and lawmakers from all parts of the political spectrum who support it.

We cannot afford to delay action on these reforms any longer, as the American people continue to demand stronger protections for their privacy. Unfortunately, some would rather use scare tactics than legislate. Some would have us wait while American businesses continue to lose tens of billions of dollars in the international marketplace. Or we could even wait until we are facing down the expiration of Section 215 in a matter of months, thereby creating dangerous uncertainty and risk for the intelligence community.

The American people have had enough delay; they want action and real reform. It is time to get back to work, to show leadership, and to govern this country responsibly. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 is an opportunity to do just that.

Let us get it done now, when it can be done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several letters and editorials in support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014.

I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished Senator from California for giving me this time.

Madam President, I yield my time to the two Senators from Georgia.

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

Madam President, I would ask for order.

We still don't have order in the Chamber.

We have confirmed three judges from Georgia and I want to compliment the two Senators from Georgia for their hard work, both in the Judiciary Committee and the White House. And in that, I am sorry they had to wait so long. On this side of the aisle we cleared every one of those for a voice vote months ago. I am sorry that your side wanted to delay it, but I see a 100-0 vote, and the voice votes are accurate. But I compliment the two Senators from Georgia for sticking with their nominees.

Madam President, I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Lee, for 4 minutes.

I thank the junior Senator from Utah who has worked so hard on this.

It has been more than a year since Americans first learned that the government had been secretly sweeping up the telephone records of innocent Americans, regardless of whether there was any connection whatsoever to terrorism or criminal activity. I introduced the original USA FREEDOM Act last October with Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held six public hearings to address these issues.

During those hearings, we learned that the bulk phone records collection program had not, as previously advertised, thwarted 54 terrorist plots, or even dozens, or even a few. In fact, we learned through our public hearings that after all the talk about why we needed this program, we learned that the number was maybe one. That is an important fact for these who argue that the NSA's bulk phone records program is somehow essential to our fight against ISIL or other terrorists. It did nothing to stop ISIL from starting in the first place.

Our bill protects Americans. It enhances privacy protections and ends indiscriminate data collection by the NSA, but also keeps the essential tools our intelligence community needs to protect our Nation. That is the simple truth and important to remember. That is why our intelligence community strongly supports this bill.

As someone who worked in law enforcement, and as a native of Vermont where the right of privacy is cherished, I know we can have both liberty and security. The USA FREEDOM Act provides for commonsense reforms to government surveillance, and promotes greater accountability and transparency of the government's surveillance programs, and it improves the FISA Court.

This is a carefully crafted bill that builds on the work of the House of Representatives. It has the unprecedented support of the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Director of the NSA, American technology companies, and privacy and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum, ranging from the ACLU and EFF to the NRA and TechFreedom. Lawmakers from all parts of the political spectrum, from the right to left, support the USA FREEDOM Act. They know it is a reasonable and responsible compromise. There is no reason why we should not proceed to a debate on this important bill.

I understand that there are some Members who want votes on parts of it, and that is fine. Let's have the votes. Let's not block this bill and say: Well, we want something better. That means you don't vote yes, you don't vote no, you vote maybe. Let's have some relevant amendments, and let's vote on them. Don't let this get bogged down in procedural nonsense that the American public hates. Senators should allow us to get onto this bill and help us reach an agreement on a limited list of germane amendments to be considered. Let's have germane amendments and vote them up or down. If we work together, we can finish the bill by the end of the week.

We cannot afford to delay action on these reforms until next year. As both the ACLU and the NRA pointed out yesterday in a joint op-ed in the Washington Times, ``every day that the Senate fails to vote on these reforms is a day in which law-abiding citizens have reason to fear that the constitutional protections so dear to the Founders and so crucial to the functioning of a free society no longer apply.''

I echoed the words we heard from the Senator from Utah. Every day that we fail to act is another day that American businesses are harmed. One conservative think tank estimated that the ``mistrust engendered by the NSA's programs could cost the U.S. technology industry between $35 billion and $180 billion over the next three years.'' That is a staggering amount.

Senators should listen to the intelligence community professionals who protect our nation every day, and who are calling for swift passage of this bill. Ask the Director of National Intelligence. Ask the Attorney General. They will tell you that it is better for our national security, and better for our fight against terrorism if we pass the USA FREEDOM Act.

This is a reasonable compromise that all Senators should support, and I thank the Majority Leader for bringing this bill to the floor. And I thank Senators Dean Heller, Mike Lee, Dick Durbin, Al Franken, and Richard Blumenthal for their steadfast work on this bill.

Our bill is good for privacy and civil liberties, and upholds our Constitution. It is good for American business. It is

good for national security. And most importantly, it is the right thing to do on behalf of Vermonters and the rest of the American people. I urge all Senators to vote in favor of the cloture motion pending before us.

I ask unanimous consent that the Statement of Administration Policy in support of the USA FREEDOM Act be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this program does not gut it; it actually enhances it.

Secondly, if this was important to stop ISIL, ISIL never would have started. The fact is that we had this program way beyond anything anybody is talking about today, and it didn't slow up or eliminate ISIL one iota. That is a straw man which we should not even have here. It has no effect on that, and everybody who has read the intelligence knows that.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object. I was going to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed up to 4 minutes.

I will not object to the request, and I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas. I am sorry the Senator from Georgia would not offer me the courtesy.

Mr. President, obviously I am disappointed by tonight's vote, but I am not new to this fight. We have had six public hearings on this issue. We heard interesting testimony by the head of the NSA who talked about 50-some-odd terrorist activities that have been thwarted by the bulk collection program. When he had to testify in public, it came down to possibly one.

I mention that because people asked whether we had hearings. We had six. But the reason I say I am not new to this fight is the very first vote I cast as a Senator in 1975 was in favor of the Senate resolution that created the Church Committee. I have worked ever since to ensure strong oversight of surveillance authorities.

We found in the Church Committee that administrations of both parties had so badly misused the tools they had in the intelligence community. We tried to put in restrictions that would balance our constitutional rights and the security that we needed as Americans. We tried to do that. I think we did.

That is why over the past decade I have consistently opposed expanding the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act sunsets without including meaningful reforms. The first sunsets were put in place by the Republican leader in the House, Dick Armey, a conservative Republican, and myself in the Senate. We joined together for the same reason: If you do not have an ability to look at these issues on a periodic basis, then they will get out of hand.

I fought the status quo every step of the way in these efforts. The broad coalition of those in favor of the USA FREEDOM Act shows we are gaining ground. While I am critical of those Republicans who failed to answer the call of the American people who elected them to stand up and work across the aisle, those who reverted to scare tactics rather than working productively to protect America's basic privacy rights and our national security--I acknowledge the hard work and principled stance of several Republicans: Senator Heller, Senator Lee, and Senator Cruz, as well as other Republicans in the other body, including my initial partner in this effort, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. There have also been two important partners on the Democratic side in this reform effort: Senators Franken and Blumenthal who worked with me on transparency and the FISA Court reforms.

We Vermonters fight to protect our privacy rights. Every Vermonter does. They mean a great deal to us. Every Vermonter feels that way, and this lifelong Vermonter will not give up the fight. I owe that to the Vermonters I serve and to the Constitution I swore an oath to defend.

I would say to those both in this Chamber and outside who approached this issue by fomenting fear, fomenting fear stifles serious debate and constructive solutions, like the carefully drawn reforms in this bill. Doing it at the last minute is all the more regrettable. This Nation deserves more than that.

This Nation should not allow our liberties to be set aside by passing fears.

America will always face the threat of terrorist attacks, both outside our borders and inside. We didn't do away with all our civil liberties after the Oklahoma City bombing. It was an American who did that, somebody who served in our military, churchgoing, and so forth. No more should we do it if the attacks come from outside our country. We talk about 9/11. We had all the evidence necessary to stop 9/11 before it happened.

Everybody who has looked at that now agrees that if we had bothered to translate the material we had, if we had bothered to listen to people in Minnesota who tried to warn us about it, we could have stopped it.

But because mistakes were made then, let's not take away the liberties of 325 million Americans.

I felt this way when I was a prosecutor. We even had people escape from prison with the intent to kill me.

I said: OK. We will get them, but we will follow the law in doing it, and we did.

Mr. President, 13 years ago this week a letter was sent to me. The anthrax in it was so deadly that the one person who touched the envelope--that I was supposed to open--died. They died from it. We still haven't caught all of the people involved.

But notwithstanding that, when people came to me and said: Well, maybe we should do away with some of our search and seizure laws, maybe we should do way with some of our laws for wiretaps, after all somebody tried to kill you. And if you had touched that envelope you would have died.

I said: No, this is more than one Senator, more than one person, more than one individual. This is the Constitution of the United States. If we, 100 Members of this body, do not protect our Constitution, we do not protect our country, and we do not deserve to be in this body.

I will continue to fight, and whatever years I have left in this body, I will continue to fight to preserve our Constitution and our rights as Americans.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Christ the King School of Burlington, VT, will soon celebrate its 75th anniversary, and it remains one of the most distinguished educational hubs in the Green Mountain State. Begun as a school to accommodate the overflow of students from the Cathedral School, three-quarters of a century later it continues to offer young Vermont students the educational foundation on which to build successful futures.

The school has undergone a considerable transformation since it opened its doors to the community of Burlington and beyond in 1940, but its commitment to education has been constant. Its curriculum helps students experience learning through real-world experiences. Recently, students traveled to Ausable Chasm in New York. Students, their teachers, and many parents hiked the chasm, collecting foliage for a future science lab where students will use paper chromatography to separate the components in leaves. By giving students opportunities to take their learning outside of the classroom, they early on come to understand the importance of engaging with the surrounding community.

In addition to expanding their curriculum to include this experiential learning, Christ the King School's recent partnership with the Tarrant Institute for Innovative Education at the University of Vermont will help give students access to technology and professional development resources that might not otherwise be available.

Christ the King School has a long history of commitment to excellence in education. I commended the School in the Record as the school celebrated its 50th anniversary, and I am pleased to again commemorate another milestone. Our young people deserve the best in their educational development. Christ the King School continues to provide the academic and spiritual guidance it has delivered for the last 75 years, and I hope will do so for decades to come.

Mr. President, Katherine Paterson is a treasure to Vermont. She is also a close friend to Marcelle and me. And today, at the age of 82, she continues to write with the grace and talent that has made her a two-time National Book Award winner and twice a Newbery medalist.

I have had the honor and good fortune to know Katherine for many years. Her humble and soft-spoken nature belie the power of her writing and her myriad contributions to children's literature.

In announcing that she would be last year's winner of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal, the committee noted: ``Katherine Paterson has been writing books that have made a profound difference in children's lives for 40 years. Her work acknowledges life's challenges and difficulties, yet she always leaves her readers with hope.''

I ask that this recent profile of Katherine Paterson, from the Burlington Free Press, be printed in the Record.

Will the distinguished majority leader yield for an observation?

Mr. President, as long as I have served in the Senate--and I have served the longest in this body--I have never seen a time when noncontroversial nominations were being held up, whether we have had a Republican or Democratic President. I would note for the majority leader that we have on the calendar 18 nominees for Federal judgeships that passed unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat in the Judiciary Committee voted for them. Many of them were recommended by Republican Senators and four of them for judicial emergencies. The oldest one has been pending since June, having gone through the committee unanimously. This is not being responsible to the American people.

The distinguished majority leader talked about the use of Executive orders. Concerns have been expressed by the other side about Executive orders on immigration. I would remind everybody that this body by a 2- to-1 margin--Republicans and Democrats joined together last year to pass a comprehensive immigration bill which covered everything from the people on the borders to those who were already in this country. The Republican leadership in the House has refused to take it up. They complain about the President 1\1/2\ years later--during all this time that has passed between the Republican and Democratic votes here, they have refused to take it up. Yet they complain that the President is going to do something.

I say bring it up and vote yes or vote no. Stop this ``we will vote maybe.''

I do.

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

Mr. President, today we will vote to end Republican filibusters on three district court nominations for Georgia, two of which are judicial emergency vacancies. The Senate should not need to waste our time jumping through these procedural hurdles to confirm nominees who are strongly supported by two Republican home State Senators.

After we vote to invoke cloture and confirm these three nominees, we will still have 17 judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar--11 to serve on district courts and 6 to serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Another nine judicial nominees will be recommended by the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. By the end of the week, there will be 26 nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee pending before the full Senate. All but a few of these nominees will have been reported unanimously and several are from States with at least one and sometimes two Republican home State Senators, including: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, and Texas. These nominees should all be confirmed before we recess in December. As I mentioned last week, I hope that Senate Republicans will work with Senate Democrats to ``clear the decks'' on pending business before the end of the 113th Congress, as the incoming majority leader has suggested.

So let us work together as we have in past lameduck sessions to get these nominees confirmed and serving their communities. In 2002, after the midterm elections, Senate Democrats worked to confirm all 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar all but one by voice vote. In the 2006 lameduck session, after Senate Democrats won the majority in the elections, Democrats agreed to confirm all 14 of President Bush's judicial nominations pending on the Executive Calendar, but this package was blocked by a Republican Senator. In the most recent lameduck sessions, in 2010 and 2012, a total of 32 judicial nominees were confirmed. We should do the same now.

Leslie Abrams is nominated to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. She is currently an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Prior to becoming an assistant U.S. attorney, she was in private practice at two nationally known law firms. After graduating from Yale Law School, Ms. Abrams served as a law clerk to Judge Marvin J. Garbis on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Mark Cohen is nominated to fill an emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He has extensive experience, having practiced for over 30 years in both the public and private sectors. Currently a partner at the law firm Troutman Sanders, Mr. Cohen has also served as counsel to former Georgia Governor, Zell Miller, and spent part of his legal career at the Georgia office of the attorney general.

Eleanor Ross is nominated to fill an emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She currently serves as a State court judge in DeKalb County, where she has presided over hundreds of cases dealing with both civil and criminal matters. Prior to becoming a judge, she served in various capacities as both a State and Federal prosecutor for over a decade. Throughout her legal career, she has tried over 150 cases to verdict.

All three of these nominees have the strong support of their Republican home State Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. All three were also reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago by voice vote.

If confirmed, Leslie Abrams and Eleanor Ross will be the first African-American women to ever serve as Federal judges in the State of Georgia. This historic moment is long overdue.

In the few remaining days of this Congress, I hope that the Republican Senators who recommended many of the pending judicial nominees to the President will work within their caucus to get consent to confirm nominees to their own home States.

I hope that all Senators will vote to end the filibuster of these nominations today and confirm them.

Mr. President, I yield back time on this side.