Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

Mr. President, as another polar vortex bears down on States across the country this week, we must consider how the dropping temperatures across the Nation will impact those who do not have refuge from the cold. The issue of homelessness is especially urgent in places like my home State of Vermont. For those of us lucky enough to have warm homes, winter brings a magical beauty. But for those without shelter, the cold

nights can be deadly. Unfortunately, for homeless teens, winter can also mean even greater vulnerability to being victimized by human traffickers.

That is why we must pass the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act today. This should be unanimous. We are talking about helping homeless children and victims of human trafficking. There is no good reason to oppose this measure.

The programs supported by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program provide essential resources to homeless children who need our help. Amanda, for example, is an 18-year-old living in Bellows Falls, VT, and participating in the Transitional Living Program at the Youth Services of Windham County. Amanda's mother gave her and her four siblings up for adoption when she was 2. When she was 13, her adoptive mother died of a stroke. Amanda was devastated, suffered academically, and eventually dropped out of school, then struggled with substance abuse and became homeless.

Fortunately, Amanda was connected with the Youth Services of Windham County and has turned her life around. She is sober, she is on track to graduate from high school, and she has a job. Amanda says of her youth worker Danielle, ``She is part of the reason why I try to keep doing so good . . . Without her, I wouldn't have what I have today.'' Funds authorized by this bill made Amanda's transformation possible. Once headed for a life of dependency, she is now poised to become a successful and contributing young adult.

There are currently 1.6 million homeless teens in this country like Amanda, and they need us to do our job and pass this bill. This bill reauthorizes critical outreach and emergency shelter services that have provided lifesaving support for the last 40 years. It takes historic steps to address the growing population of homeless LGBT youth by ensuring that no young person is denied services based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It also addresses new dangers that our young people face, like sexual exploitation and human trafficking, which urgently require our attention.

Human trafficking is a growing problem in the United States, and traffickers prey upon our weakest young people, especially those in need of money or shelter. Too often, homeless children become trapped in devastating cycles of abuse and exploitation.

Runaway and homeless youth service providers are our first line of defense. This bill makes sure they are trained to identify victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking, so they can help victims become survivors.

After this bill was first introduced in July, it was considered by the Judiciary Committee and was voted out in September with strong bipartisan support. We had bipartisan input on the legislation, including from Senator Cornyn, who offered an amendment that included nearly every provision of his Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This amendment gives law enforcement new tools to combat human trafficking and provides expanded support for victims of sexual exploitation.

Working across the aisle to enhance this bill and get it passed reminds me of the way both Houses of Congress came together to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act just last year. Domestic violence, like youth homelessness, is not new. However, the challenges faced by victims are constantly changing, and we must be responsive to the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. We cannot become complacent in the face of suffering. We need to pass this bill.

I thank Senator Collins for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as an original cosponsor. I ask for the support of every Senator to pass the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. The American people expect it, and our humanity demands it.

Mr. President, as we return from recess for the remaining days of the 113th Congress, I begin by congratulating my friend Senator Chuck Grassley who will become chairman of the Judiciary Committee beginning in the 114th Congress. We have a very good working relationship, and I hope this will continue when he assumes the chairmanship in January.

We still have several weeks left in this Congress with much work left to be done. As history shows, when both sides work together, the lameduck session can be a productive one for filling vacancies on our courts. In 2002, after the midterm elections, Senate Democrats worked to confirm 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees--all but one by voice vote. In the 2006 lameduck session, after Senate Democrats won the majority in the elections, Democrats agreed to confirm the 14 judicial nominations pending on the floor, 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. With the 2014 midterm elections behind us, I hope we will, as the incoming majority leader suggests, ``clear the decks'' on pending business so that we can start fresh next year.

Currently, there are 16 district court nominations that have been pending before the full Senate for months and another eight district court nominations and one Court of International Trade nomination that will be reported out of the Judiciary Committee before the end of the month. There are also six nominees pending before the Senate to fill vacancies on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, two nominees to fill vacancies on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and three nominees to fill vacancies on the U.S. Tax Court.

Today, we will vote to overcome the needless filibuster of just two of the district court nominations that have been pending before the full Senate since June, one of which will fill a judicial emergency vacancy in Georgia.

Randolph Moss is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Moss ``well qualified'' to serve on that court--its highest rating. Since 2001, he has been a partner at the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP. He has also served in various capacities for the U.S. Department of Justice. Upon graduating from Yale Law School, Mr. Moss clerked for Judge Pierre N. Leval on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leigh May is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She is currently a partner at the law firm of Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer, LLP, in Atlanta, GA, where she has practiced since 2000. After graduating magna cum laude from the University of Georgia Law School, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

We still have much work to do to fill the 64 current judicial vacancies and 27 known upcoming vacancies on our Federal district and circuit courts. Before the end of this Congress we could cut the number of vacancies on our district and circuit courts by one-third. To get this done, however, we must stop delaying for delay's sake votes for consensus nominees. Unless there is cooperation from Republican Senators, we will not have time to clear the Executive Calendar before adjournment. At the very least, I would 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 their nominees.

I hope all Senators will vote to put an end to the filibuster of these nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

I withhold that request. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only five states, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. Following the Supreme Court's historic decision last month to not review decisions from several circuits

striking down same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, same-sex couples in 35 States and the District of Columbia are, or will soon be, able to marry. This is welcome progress. In modern America, no person should face discrimination based on the one they love.

Despite this' tremendous progress, there is still more to be done. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue in the remaining states that do not recognize marriage equality. In Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our federal laws treat all marriages equally.

Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to surviving spouses of copyright owners only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's state of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Florida, Georgia, or one of the other states that do not currently recognize their marriage.

Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. It is wrong for the federal government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.

Today I am introducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, a version of which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally.

Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. It is time to fix these outdated laws once and for all. I urge the Senate to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only five states, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. Following the Supreme Court's historic decision last month to not review decisions from several circuits

striking down same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, same-sex couples in 35 States and the District of Columbia are, or will soon be, able to marry. This is welcome progress. In modern America, no person should face discrimination based on the one they love.

Despite this' tremendous progress, there is still more to be done. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue in the remaining states that do not recognize marriage equality. In Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our federal laws treat all marriages equally.

Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to surviving spouses of copyright owners only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's state of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Florida, Georgia, or one of the other states that do not currently recognize their marriage.

Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. It is wrong for the federal government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.

Today I am introducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, a version of which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally.

Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. It is time to fix these outdated laws once and for all. I urge the Senate to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a common reality that permeates the complex and colorful history of Latin America is large numbers of landless, impoverished people and small elites who control the majority of the land and the country's wealth, often exploiting its natural resources for personal gain.

While the significant growth of the middle class in some South American countries over the past decade is encouraging, nowhere is the disparity of land ownership more pronounced than in Paraguay, a landlocked country of 6.5 million people that rarely receives the attention of the U.S. Congress.

A few statistics tell the story. Some 80 percent of agricultural land in Paraguay is owned by just 1.6 percent of the landowners, and the 600 largest properties comprise 40 percent of the total productive land. Meanwhile, a third of a million small farmers have no land at all. It should surprise no one that 40

percent of the country's population lives in poverty and that land, wealth, and political power are concentrated in the hands of a few.

The conflict over land in Paraguay, which dates back hundreds of years, has grown even worse due to the expansion of mechanized soy production, primarily for export. Government policies, including tax breaks, access to credit, and weak environmental and labor regulations, have favored large corporate farms which are often foreign owned, over local family farms that receive little if any government support.

As we have seen in many other Latin countries, the Paraguayan Government has used the army, police, and judicial inaction or bias to protect the interests of the large landowners.

The 35 year dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner ended in 1989. He ruled under a state of siege, imprisoned and tortured political opponents, and reportedly gave away or sold for a pittance 20 percent of the country's land to friends of his regime. Paraguay is slowly moving beyond the Stroessner years, but since 1989 more than 130 small farmers who have tried to defend their rights under the agrarian reform law have reportedly been killed.

I mention this bit of history to put into context what happened on June 15, 2012. According to information I have received, on that day several hundred police officers forcibly evicted a group of about 60 landless farmers who were occupying an area known as Marina Kue in eastern Paraguay. In the ensuing violence, eleven farmers and six police officers were killed and others injured from the gunfire. There has apparently been no investigation of the conduct of the police, despite the existence of published reports about human rights abuses, but all the farmers were charged with crimes.

This case offers the Paraguayan Government an important opportunity to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of the events of June 15, prosecute and punish those responsible for the killings and injuries of the farmers and police officers, and enable poor farmers in that community to acquire legal rights to land and put it to productive use to feed their families.

I understand that the Paraguayan Government recently began working to reach an agreement with the affected communities regarding the land dispute prior to the beginning of the trial of the farmers later this month. This is encouraging news, and it could be a turning point if it results in a thorough, independent investigation and prosecution of those responsible and a just resolution of the dispute.

Paraguay and the United States, while separated by more than 4,000 miles, share many interests. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations that funds U.S. foreign assistance programs, I have supported programs to help Paraguay strengthen its democratic institutions, promote efficiency and transparency, and promote equitable economic development. I also supported the funding for the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Threshold Program in Paraguay.

There will be other ways the United States can help Paraguay build the capacity and accountability of its public sector, expand its economy, and sustainably manage its natural resources. Few things would do more to advance these goals, and improve social stability, than addressing what happened at Marina Kue and providing access to land for Paraguay's small farmers. I am aware that several other Members of Congress are sending a letter to President Horacio Cartes urging these steps, and I look forward to his response.

Mr. President, more than 30 years ago, in the midst of Guatemala's civil war, the construction of a large hydroelectric dam on the Chixoy River resulted in destruction of 33 indigenous Mayan communities and the massacres of more than 400 villagers and other abuses by the Guatemalan army.

The history of that tragedy is well known so I will not recount it here. Suffice it to say that a great injustice was committed. There was ample blame to go around between the Army, the World Bank, and Inter- American Development Bank that financed the dam, governments, including the United States, whose representatives on the banks' boards of directors voted for the construction, and subsequent Guatemalan Governments that failed to compensate the victims or punish those responsible.

Last month, the Guatemalan Government and representatives of the communities culminated many months of negotiations with an agreement to implement the contents of the 2010 reparations plan, including individual payments and community development investments that will be financed over a period of years. The agreement was formalized at a public ceremony on Saturday, November 1, attended by Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina, members of the communities, other government officials, and representatives of the multilateral banks and the United Nations.

There are many who thought this day would never come, and I commend the commitment and patience of the members of the communities, particularly those who lost loved ones so many years ago, the Guatemalan officials who negotiated the agreement, President Perez Molina for his personal support, as well as key officials from the multilateral banks who played an indispensable role, and Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Moreno, who also took a personal interest. I also commend the U.S. Embassy officials and representatives of the Catholic Church who provided encouragement and support during this process. Finally, I want to acknowledge Guatemala's Ambassador to the United States and the U.S. Treasury Department officials who recognized the need to resolve this issue.

This is a historic milestone that finally begins to right a grievous wrong, a wrong that was emblematic of the horrors of the armed conflict that engulfed Guatemala a generation ago. A great many innocent people lost their lives or their livelihoods in that war, and many of the key provisions of the 1992 Peace Accords remain unfulfilled.

Until now, Chixoy was among the unfinished business, so this is a welcome and important step toward addressing the damages suffered by these communities. Yet I am as mindful as others that in many respects this agreement is only the beginning. The task ahead is to ensure its implementation, which will be the responsibility of the current and future Guatemalan Governments, the multilateral banks that have pledged to redirect some of their own resources to this effort, and all those who care about Guatemala's past, present, and future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of Saturday's ceremony formalizing the agreement, provided by the Guatemalan Embassy in Washington, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government from October 1 to December 11. This vote should not be necessary. There is no good reason why we are not voting on fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills to fund the government the way we used to rather than a continuing resolution that keeps the government on autopilot despite many new and compelling needs.

Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, have made this argument as well as any two people could. It is unacceptable that the Congress, which has the power of the purse, fails to use that power in a responsible manner. Passing annual appropriations bills should be a priority for both parties, and I hope that between now and when this short-term CR expires, we can do our job and finish work on those bills which were reported by the Appropriations Committee months ago--and send them to the President.

Nine months ago, when the fiscal year 2014 omnibus was enacted, no one anticipated the Ebola epidemic which has infected thousands of people and today threatens all of Africa, thus, there is little funding available to combat it. The Defense Department, USAID, CDC, and others are scrambling to reprogram funds from other important programs.

Nine months ago, no one envisioned the surge in young migrants from Central America, and so the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are reprogramming funds. But it is not nearly enough to address the horrific gang violence and endemic poverty in those countries that are contributing to the flood of refugees across our border.

Nine months ago, did anyone here predict that ISIS would be routing units of the Iraqi army, beheading Americans, and seizing control of territory? Did anyone foresee Russia's intervention in Ukraine? Did anyone foresee that we would be sending U.S. military advisors to Nigeria to help track down hundreds of school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? There is no money in the budget for any of this, so we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bills have been reported out of committee with strong bipartisan support. Let's debate them. Senators can offer amendments. We can vote. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking the ball down the road for another 2\1/2\ months.

Obviously, we all recognize the need to keep the Federal Government operating. As much as I disagree with this approach, I would vote for the continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. But this vote does far more than that. It authorizes the President under title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide training and weapons to Syrian rebel forces. In other words, we are authorizing U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war which for the past 2 years the administration has strongly advised against and doing so by tacking that authority onto a short-term spending bill to keep the government operating.

As much as I believe the United States should support the fight against ISIS and as much as I commend the President and Secretary Kerry for their efforts to build a coalition to that end, I am not convinced that the President's plan to intervene in Syria can succeed. There are too many unanswered questions about the composition, intentions, allegiances, and capabilities of the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels who, like the Iraqi militias that openly admit to atrocities, are accountable to no one.

There is too little clarity about the White House's intentions, particularly when there is talk of unilateral air attacks against ISIS by U.S. forces inside Syrian territory. There has been too little discussion of the potential consequences of this strategy for the brutal Assad regime which also opposes ISIS, for the anti-ISIS coalition, or for Iran's or Russia's ability to expand their influence in that region.

We have been assured that recipients of U.S. military equipment are vetted and that the use of the equipment is monitored. Yet we have seen U.S. military vehicles and weapons worth millions of dollars in the hands of ISIS and other anti-American groups in Iraq and Libya. Who can say who else has gotten their hands on them, or that the weapons we provide the Syrian rebels will not be used against innocent civilians or end up in the hands of our enemies?

The House resolution we are voting on addresses this issue narrowly, requiring vetting only as it relates to association with terrorists or Iran. It says nothing about vetting for gross violations of human rights, as would be required for assistance for foreign security forces under the Leahy Amendment.

The administration says we need to defeat ISIS. I don't disagree. ISIS is a barbaric enterprise that has no respect for human life and poses a grave threat to anyone it encounters, including Americans. Yet that is what the previous White House said about Al Qaeda. A dozen years and hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives later, Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it once was but is far from defeated.

Since 9/11, numerous offshoots of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have proliferated not only in South Asia but throughout the Middle East and into east and north Africa. And one of those groups, formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda, is ISIS. Some say ISIS is worse than Al Qaeda. If ISIS is defeated, who comes next?

Not long ago the President said the sweeping 2001 authorization for the use of military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks should be repealed. Yet the White House recently cited it as a basis for attacking ISIS. Alternatively, the White House says the President has the authority he needs under the 2002 authorization for the use of military force to defeat Saddam Hussein. No objective reading of those resolutions supports that conclusion. Yet here we are about to embark on another open ended war against terrorism, albeit, thankfully, without U.S. ground troops.

We can help combat ISIS, and we must, but the Governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others in that region--some of which have vast wealth--need to show they share that goal at least as much as we do, not just by their statements but by their actions.

They should take the lead. We can support them, although Saudi Arabia, besides being a major oil supplier, has one of the world's most repressive governments and Saudi charities have been a steady source of revenue for extremist groups. One has to wonder whether such alliances help or hurt us in the long run.

I have thought hard about this. It is far from black and white. I deeply respect the President. In the end, he may be right. But I worry about the slippery slope we may be starting down in the thick of a sectarian civil war. I am not prepared--on a stop-gap, short-term spending bill containing authority drafted by the House of Representatives, in the waning hours of the day of

adjournment, and with no opportunity for amendments--to endorse a policy that will involve spending hundreds of millions and almost certainly billions of dollars over multiple years to train and arm Syrian fighters who may or may not share our goals or values, not in a part of the world where past U.S. military interventions with similarly vague goals involving similarly questionable allies have consistently turned out very differently from the Pollyannaish predictions of former Pentagon and White House officials. Time and again we have been assured of relatively quick and easy success, only to pay dearly over the course of protracted, costly wars that fell far short of their lofty goals and unleashed forces of hatred that no one predicted.

Year after year, the administration asked Congress for billions of dollars to support former Iraqi President Malaki's government. Yet the White House now concedes that his sectarian policies and the widely reported abuses of the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped were a cause of the resentment and divisions that contributed to the rise of ISIS and threaten to break Iraq apart.

The Iraq war was a disaster for this country. The families of Americans who gave their lives or were grievously injured will suffer the consequences for many years to come. It caused lasting damage to our national reputation and to the image and readiness of our armed forces. Yet I worry that other than trying to avoid another costly deployment of U.S. ground troops, we have learned little from that fiasco. The Middle East is no place to intervene militarily without a thorough understanding of the history and the centuries-old tribal, religious, and ethnic rivalries that have far more relevance than anything we might think we can achieve.

Does that mean there is no role for the United States in that part of the world? Of course not. But rather than set goals that may or may not be realistic but will almost certainly have profound and potentially dangerous unintended and unanticipated consequences, let's have a real debate that thoroughly considers all the options, all the costs, all the pros and cons. This is far too important a decision to be dealt with in such a cursory manner.

So I will vote no, with the hope that in November or December we will revisit this issue and have the real debate we are avoiding today.

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

I see my good friend, the senior Senator from Texas, on the floor, and I am about to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4323.

Before I do, Senator Cornyn has been very interested in this. This is the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act. I have been working with Debbie Smith since her bill was first introduced in 2001. He is probably one of the few Senators who was here with me at that time when I first supported it. It is to improve access to rape kits, testing, and services for survivors of sexual assault.

Senator Cornyn has been a strong supporter. I know he also supports the Justice for All Act as well, something he cosponsored, and the distinguished Republican leader has.

I would like to get them all passed. I realize one Republican--not the Senator from Texas--is objecting to passing the Justice for All Act, and I don't want to pit one against the other.

Because at least this one expires this month, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4323, which was received from the House.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I will continue to work with the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the Justice for All Act. Ninety-nine Senators agree to pass it and only 1 is objecting. It requires a rollcall vote when we come back in November. I hope we can have that rollcall vote perhaps in a timely rotation. And with 99 Senators who say they support it, the 1 Senator who has been blocking it can vote against it. But those of us who have been in law enforcement know how important it is.

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

Mr. President, as Members of Congress prepare to head back to their home States, it is important to note that the 113th Congress does not end this week, or for that matter, on November 4. We still have a significant amount of unfinished business that must be resolved before the year's end, and the American people expect and deserve our commitment to getting that work done. I strongly support Majority Leader Reid's decision to reconvene the Senate shortly after the elections so that we can complete work on a number of bipartisan bills that can and should be enacted this year. We were sent to the Senate by our constituents to do the work of the American people, and those responsibilities will not diminish after the election--no matter what the results.

When the Senate returns in November, I will continue to urge swift consideration and passage of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, S.2685. This is a bipartisan bill that makes important reforms to the government's surveillance authorities, while providing the intelligence community the operational flexibility it needs to keep our country safe. That is why the bill is supported not only by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General but also by a broad coalition of privacy and civil liberties groups, the technology industry, and Members of Congress from across the political spectrum. There is no excuse for not considering it in November. If Senators want to vote against the bill, they have every right to do so, but the American public deserves to know where we stand on the issue of the bulk collection of innocent Americans' phone records, and the intelligence community deserves some measure of predictability and certainty.

I also hope that the Senate will, without further delay, take up and pass the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, S.822, and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 933. Both of these bills are noncontroversial and were reported with overwhelming support by the Judiciary Committee. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act strengthens the rights of crime victims and improves access to postconviction DNA testing to protect the innocent and improve safety in our communities. It is a common sense bill that improves the justice system for everyone involved. That is why Senator Cornyn and Senator McConnell are both cosponsors of the bill and why it has the support of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. Despite this support from the key Republican leadership in the Senate, legislation to reauthorize the Justice for All Act--originally signed into law by President George W. Bush--is being blocked on the Republican side. Such obstructionism is unwarranted, and the Senate should at least be allowed to bring this bill up for a vote.

Republican obstruction of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act is similarly unwarranted and must stop. Just this week, we remembered and mourned the senseless killing of 12 people 1 year ago at the Navy Yard, just a few blocks from the Capitol. Such horrifying acts of violence have become far too common, and each serves as a painful reminder of the perils faced by law enforcement every day. During the brutal firefight at the Navy Yard, a Metropolitan Police Department officer was struck in the chest. His bulletproof vest stopped the bullet. The officer was then able to return fire and take down the gunman, finally bringing an end to the violence.

Members of Congress often speak passionately about the need to stand with law enforcement. It would seem beyond dispute, then, that no officer should have to serve without protective vests. This is why Congress has historically acted in unison to support the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program, which has enabled over 13,000 law enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests. Protective vests are credited with saving the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Today, every Democratic Senator stands ready to reauthorize this lifesaving program. Yet a few Senate Republicans are blocking it. It is past time for our actions to match our rhetoric. If Republicans claim to stand with law enforcement, then surely they should stand with them when it matters most. I urge all Senators to help pass this bill as soon as we return.

There are several additional priorities of law enforcement that have bipartisan support and should receive consideration in the remaining weeks of the year. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Second Chance Reauthorization Act. I thank the broad bipartisan list of cosponsors for working with me to reduce recidivism and make our communities safer with this legislation. Communities of faith are calling on the Senate to move forward and pass this important bill and I hope we will hear their call.

This Congress we also have an opportunity to reduce dangerous prison overcrowding while actually improving

public safety. The relentless growth of our Federal prison population threatens not only the safety of prison staff and inmates but also the budgets of the very law enforcement programs that keep us safe. This growth is driven by inflexible and unfair drug mandatory minimums--a problem that we in Congress created, and only we can fix. The bipartisan Smarter Sentencing Act would modestly reduce some nonviolent drug mandatory minimums and help to preserve essential funding for law enforcement agencies and victim services. This bill would save the government money, a fact confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office just this week, and it deserves the Senate's full attention.

By the end of the year, the Senate must consider and pass S. 2454, the Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant television programming to consumers. If Congress does not act by the end of the year to reauthorize the distant signal license, approximately 1.5 million consumers will lose access to the broadcast television programming that they currently receive. This is particularly important in rural areas like Vermont, where many Americans rely on satellite for their television providers. Congress should act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to these consumers.

Congress also should pass reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to bring our privacy laws into the 21st century. The Leahy-Lee ECPA Reform Act updates our digital privacy laws to keep pace with new technologies, protect civil liberties, and provide guidance to law enforcement. Congress should act swiftly to pass this bill.

Finally, the Senate is not the only Chamber that needs to get right back to work after the election. I have spoken at length before about the need for the House to allow a vote on the Senate-passed immigration bill. I hope that once they return to Washington, the House Republican leadership will finally put election year politicking and pandering aside and simply allow a vote on S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. That bill passed the Senate more than a year ago on a strong bipartisan vote, and the urgent need to pass this practical legislative fix for our broken immigration system increases with every passing day. It would immediately spur our economy and take away the pressing need for the President to act through Executive order.

The House should also consider and pass S. 42, the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2013, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent almost a year ago. Senator Grassley and I came together to draft the bipartisan Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act to improve the enforcement of our Nation's antitrust laws and extend whistleblower protections to employees who report criminal violations of the antitrust laws. These include violations that are particularly harmful to consumers, such a price fixing. Again, this is a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that can and should be passed overwhelmingly. There is no reason--political or otherwise--for the House of Representatives to delay its enactment.

After the upcoming elections, I plan to return to Washington to get back to the work of the people. That is why the voters of Vermont elected me, and that is what I swore an oath to do. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to continue our work on nominations and oversight, as well as the legislative business pending before the Committee. I hope that the full Senate and the House will similarly press forward without delay to complete work on the array of bipartisan bills that are ripe for consideration and passage. There is simply no reason to delay or obstruct action on these bills, and no reason to further exacerbate the perception held by many Americans that Congress cannot work together to accomplish anything. I know that we can work together to pass these bills, but it will require the cooperation and commitment of all Senators. I know that Vermonters--and all Americans-- are counting on us to get the work done.

Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to go into recess, Senate Republicans are refusing to allow confirmation votes on the more than 20 judicial nominees who will now be stuck in limbo for months. There is no good reason why the Senate cannot confirm these nominees before the recess other than wholesale obstruction of a co-equal branch of government's nominees.

The Senate Republicans' baseless obstruction includes blocking from consideration nominations made to their home States. Right now, there are five nominations pending to fill judicial emergency vacancies in Kentucky and Georgia, which have gone unfilled for years. The Republican Senators from these States have come out in strong support for the nominees from their respective States. Yet the Republican leadership refuses to agree to schedule votes on these or any other nominations. This is simply delay for delay's sake.

Currently on the Senate Executive Calendar are qualified nominees to fill Federal trial court vacancies in Kentucky, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Missouri. All but two of the nominees were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. I wonder what the constituents of these States think is causing this delay? I can assure you it is not Senate Democrats.

This Republican pattern of refusing to confirm noncontroversial, consensus nominees has gone on for the duration of this Presidency. I have sought to remind my fellow Senators that their refusal to confirm these nominations prior to an extended recess is an unfortunate departure from Senate tradition. Time and again I have urged Senate Republicans to stop their obstructive practices and delay tactics. And once again, I am disappointed to see partisanship and senseless obstruction continue to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent.

It is true that since the beginning of this year we have reduced the vacancies on our Federal courts from 92 to 59, but no Senator should believe that our work is done. Even if we were to confirm the more than 20 judicial nominees currently pending on the Senate floor, the Federal judiciary remains significantly understaffed. The Judicial Conference has identified the need for 91 new judgeships in some of America's judicial districts and circuits with the highest caseloads. Last year, Senator Coons and I introduced the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 to enact these recommendations into law. The timely administration of justice should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue that affects all Americans, and the Senate should take it seriously by passing this bill.

The recommendations of the Judicial Conference underscore the need for the Senate to fulfill its obligations to the Federal judiciary and the American people. I have heard some Republican Senators claim the opposite by citing the total number of judicial confirmation under this President. It is true that the Senate has now confirmed 278 of President Obama's circuit, district, and U.S. Court of International Trade nominees, compared to 254 confirmations at the same point in the last administration. Yet these numbers are meaningless without providing their proper context. These confirmations were sorely needed. There remain 59 vacancies on the Federal bench--far more than the 45 vacancies at this point during the Bush administration. There are an additional 25 announced future judicial vacancies on our Federal courts that will also need to be filled in the coming months. If you care about providing our co-equal branch of government with the resources it needs to serve its constitutional role, then it is important to look at the number of vacancies that still exist and how long some of them have remained empty.

Vacancies remain high not because of a failure of Senate Democrats or President Obama to make judicial confirmations a priority. These vacancies persist because of the endless obstruction of partisan Republicans who take every opportunity they can to shut down the important work of the Senate. Last year, no longer content to block individual judges, Senate Republicans attempted a wholesale filibuster of three

nominees to the D.C. Circuit, without even considering their qualifications. Then, instead of confirming the consensus judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar prior to the end of the congressional session, Republicans forced the President to renominate each nominee and for the Senate Judiciary Committee to report them again this year.

In 2014, Senate Republicans have proceeded to filibuster each and every judicial nominee. The Senate has taken 62 cloture votes on judicial nominations so far this year, amounting to well over 400 wasted hours that the Senate should have been spending considering legislation to help the American people. Never before has the Senate seen the systematic filibuster of every judicial nominee or such unfair treatment of qualified, consensus nominees.

The Senate should act quickly to confirm the judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor. Because Republican obstruction will prevent us from finishing our work before the elections, we must return to session as soon as possible after the elections in November to complete our important work. The American people deserve courts capable of providing access to swift justice, not empty courtrooms and delays.

Next year, the Nation will celebrate the 95th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women, at long last, the right to vote. The result of more than four decades of advocacy from such giants of the women's equality movement as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the amendment was merely a first step in advancing women's rights.

Since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, there has been considerable progress in the march for gender equality. The President's Commission on the Status of Women, established by President Kennedy and directed by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, in part led to formation of the National Organization for Women. NOW's core issues include two on which this Congress has been rightly focused: ending violence against women, and promoting economic justice.

The country last week celebrated the 20th anniversary of the enactment of

the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark law shined a light on the scourge of domestic violence and improved the criminal justice system's response to these cases. Last year, Congress again came together to reauthorize and strengthen VAWA to address the evolving needs of domestic and sexual violence victims, and to ensure that those protections are available to all victims, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, race or gender. The VAWA reauthorization law, which I was proud to author, was just one example of how we must continue to build on the historic work of past years in advancing equal rights and opportunities for American women.

And earlier this week, the Senate yet again tried to move forward with legislation to address pay equality. Building on more than 50 years of progress, starting with the Civil Rights Act, which barred employment discrimination based on race and gender, and on the heels of the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act would take a significant step toward ensuring a balanced and equal environment for women in the workplace. Unfortunately, for the fourth time, partisan objections have prevented the Senate from advancing this legislation to hold employers accountable and to protect employees from retaliation for discussing their salaries with colleagues. Vermont has adopted its own Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to offer anything less than equal pay for equal work. Still, in Vermont, where 22,000 households are headed by women, the yearly gender pay gap is nearly $6,000. More needs to be done, and we can do better.

This year, Vermont will mark two important anniversaries. Thirty years ago, Vermont voters sent the first woman in our history to the State House to serve as Governor. Madeleine Kunin, a trailblazer in Vermont, served for 6 years as Governor, before becoming a Deputy Secretary of Education in the Clinton Administration. As a child, she fled the threat of the Holocaust, leaving Switzerland with her family for the hope and promise of America. She returned to the country that she had been forced to flee when President Clinton appointed her to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. She continues to lead and inspire as an author, educator, mentor to women in politics, and tireless advocate for women's rights.

Later this year, the Vermont Women's Fund will celebrate 20 years of supporting women, both in the workplace and at home. The Fund helps women overcome economic hardships to live secure and successful lives. The Fund guides young women to opportunities in nontraditional career paths and propels future leaders to reach their goals. As we well know, when women are given an equal opportunity, their achievements are elevated. When women are given equal opportunities, they thrive and often rise to the top. When women are given a fair shot, their contributions at home, in the workplace and in our communities make us all better. The Vermont Women's Fund, with its diverse and representative council, works to establish and preserve that progress for Vermonters.

In the nearly 95 years since the Nation came together to belatedly extend the right to vote to women, we have made considerable strides in advancing gender equality. More than two dozen women lead Fortune 500 companies, an achievement once viewed as unattainable to young women entering the workforce. Women have risen to some of the highest ranks in our government. Women now comprise a majority of students enrolled in college. In Vermont, we are proud of our history in advancing women's rights. Leaders like Madeleine Kunin, and programs like the Vermont Women's Fund, are shining examples of why Vermont is a leader in this social progress for women and our entire society. And we are proud to be a national leader in the advancement of women. Congress, and the country, can learn and benefit from Vermont's trailblazing example.

Mr. President, tomorrow we will mark Constitution Day--a day set aside to reflect on our Nation's charter and how it has shaped what it means to be American. On September 17, 1787, George Washington, James Madison, and their fellow Framers made the momentous decision to sign the Constitution and send it along to the American people for ratification marking a new beginning in our Nation's profound experiment in democracy.

As important as the original charter continues to be, the Founders did not design it to be immutable. One of its most notable features is article 5, which established the process for improvement in the form of constitutional amendments. This key provision rooted in both intellectual humility and constitutional faith--ensured that our Nation's constitutional journey would not conclude in Philadelphia in 1787. Instead, it would continue to unfold in the decades and centuries that followed, tasking each generation of Americans with improving the charter in order to build ``a more perfect Union.''

Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has been amended 17 times. These changes have helped to make the Constitution the revered document it is today. As I have noted on previous Constitution Days, Americans must celebrate not just the original Constitution of Washington, Madison, and the founding generation, but the whole Constitution, including its 27 amendments. This is all the more important as we approach a key set of anniversaries--the 150th anniversaries of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which many scholars have rightly described as our nation's ``Second Founding.''

Ratified by President Lincoln and his generation after the Civil War, these Second Founding amendments transformed our original charter-- ending slavery, banning racial discrimination in voting, and elevating liberty and equality to a central place in our constitutional order. Perhaps most importantly, these amendments gave Congress the authority it needed to protect the civil rights of all Americans--authority that we have used to pass landmark civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Before our Nation marked the original Constitution's bicentennial in 1987, Congress established a commission led by Chief Justice Burger to organize a national celebration. Americans from across the political spectrum came together in a spirit of unity and pride to honor the founding generation's profound achievements. With the 150th anniversary of the second founding, President Lincoln and his generation deserve the same.

It is deeply saddening to me that the anniversary of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments coincides not with such a celebration, however, but with what can be called nothing short of an attack on the principles of equality and liberty they protect. The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder and the wave of recent State laws undermining the right to vote demonstrate a dangerous erosion of these monumental Amendments that provide us the tools we need to build a fairer, freer, and more equal society.

Tomorrow, as we celebrate the signing of our Constitution 227 years ago, I hope we also reflect on the unfinished work ahead that is necessary to live up to the core principles enshrined in our Nation's charter--including those of the second founding. The racial tensions exposed by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO are not new, but they should serve as a clear reminder that our work is not done. I am heartened by the national dialogue that has been sparked by that young man's tragic death, and it is my sincere hope that we can harness that energy, directing it not toward greater distrust and divide but toward meeting the challenge to build ``a more perfect Union'' left to us by our Founders.