Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate the kind, heartfelt words of the distinguished majority leader when speaking about Tommy Boggs-- Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr. Many of us knew him well.

I was at Georgetown law school with Tommy, and we often talked about those days and the friendships we had, and so many people who we knew are still in this town. I think of him walking down the hall, and we would see each other and start grinning or laughing. Whoever his client was would wonder what we were laughing about. It was usually something that happened in our law school class from 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

He was very, very effective. He was very good. He had an easygoing attitude that somehow cloaked the fact that he had a first-class mind. He had an encyclopedia knowledge for facts.

As someone who deals with Members of Congress, he had one unfailing attribute that made him successful. He always told the truth even if it was something one didn't want to hear, and he always kept his word. He was a good friend.

Mr. President, as one who had the privilege of being a prosecutor, I have great faith in our criminal justice system and the men and women who have dedicated their lives to making it work. Sometimes mistakes are made, and those mistakes have catastrophic consequences. They can mean an innocent person spends his or her life in prison, or worse, is executed. They mean a guilty person remains free--able to victimize again. When mistakes are made, lives are destroyed.

We would like to think these kinds of mistakes are few and far between, but they happen all the time. Just this month we saw that two innocent men in North Carolina were exonerated. They had served 30 years behind bars for a crime they did not commit. One of those men had been sentenced to death.

Can you imagine being in a prison and having those steel doors close every day all the while knowing you are there--perhaps never to leave until you die--for a crime you never committed? But even worse, you know that the person who committed the crime is out free.

Can you imagine that? I know some of these people. I have talked with them. I know it and can just begin to understand what gnaws at them when they are behind bars for a crime they didn't commit, knowing that the person who committed the crime is out free to do it again.

Henry Lee McCollum and his half brother Leon Brown were teenagers. They were arrested in 1983 for a heinous crime--the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. They were interrogated for hours, and then these two mentally disabled teens gave false confessions. They were ultimately convicted of a crime they did not commit. While these innocent men sat behind bars, the unthinkable happened--the real offender went on to rape and murder another young girl.

These men have lost so much. They were not there when their mother or grandmother died. They have never married or had children. Mr. McCollum had to be placed in isolation every time another inmate was taken to the execution chamber to keep him from harming himself in his distress. It was only this year when a cigarette butt left at the crime scene was finally tested for DNA that their names were cleared and the real perpetrator identified.

That critical DNA test was made possible by the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, which is part of the Innocence Protection Act that I wrote more than 14 years ago. I was proud to be there with President Bush when he signed it into law as part of the Justice for All Act of 2004. The program was named for a man whom I consider my friend, Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime he did not commit. He was the first person on death row to be exonerated by DNA evidence. He had been convicted on eye witness identification, even though he made it very clear he wasn't anywhere near where this happened. Do my colleagues know that when they finally exonerated him and identified who the real person was, there was someone at the prison who said, Oh, yeah, we have that guy locked up for another crime. Boy, they do look alike, don't they?

Unfortunately, hundreds of others have gone through the same hell Kirk lived through. Well over 300 Americans have been exonerated using DNA testing. But then I wonder how many others are going to have to suffer before

we act. The U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, announced last Thursday he will launch a conviction integrity unit following five recent exonerations. Similar programs exist in Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Jose, and Detroit.

This underscores the fact that mistakes can happen all too often. Any good prosecutor fears the possibility of a mistake happening because usually prosecutors are going to get convictions. They want to make sure they prosecute the right person. Unfortunately, though, there are some who have been willing to accept less than adequate evidence or ignore the fact that no real effort was made to find all of the adequate evidence.

For example, we are just beginning to understand the scope of the systemic errors committed by hair and fiber analysts at the FBI crime lab in the 1980s and the 1990s. I know as a young prosecutor I relied on that FBI crime lab. Now we find there were errors and they were hidden and covered up--errors involving the question of the convictions of 2,600 defendants, including 45 on death row.

In a separate inquiry involving the same FBI unit, more than 60 death row convictions were potentially tainted by agent misconduct.

Those statistics are bad enough, but according to the Justice Department's inspector general, three of those defendants were executed before their attorneys were notified of the misconduct. One of them would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI's flawed work. Whether someone is for or against the death penalty, it should shock our conscience. It is unacceptable. We may have executed an innocent man. I will hold the FBI accountable. I will demand they take the necessary steps to ensure that such a systemic failure never occurs again. I know the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, shares my outrage about this situation.

So it is against this backdrop of these shocking cases that I come to the floor and urge the Senate to take swift action. Let us reauthorize the Justice for All Act, which includes the post-conviction DNA testing program that is a lifeline to the wrongfully convicted.

There is nothing partisan or political about ensuring we have the right person behind bars and we are not locking up an innocent person. That is an issue both Republicans and Democrats agree on, and that is why the Justice for All Act has the support of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and as I said cosponsored by me and Senator Cornyn.

Justice is the bedrock of our great country. Our Founders understood that a government's legitimacy is eroded every time an innocent person is sent to prison for a crime he did not commit. They sought to protect against this erosion by enshrining fundamental protections for the accused in our Bill of Rights. While those protections are critical, they are not fail-safe. We have to do more. Lives are in the balance. Lives are in the balance.

The dozens of exonerations made possible by the Justice for All Act are testament enough to its value. Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown are just the latest examples. The injustice they survived--and the fact that North Carolina nearly executed an innocent man--should dispel any doubt this legislation is needed. It is time for the Senate to pass this bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act. First giving appropriate notice to both leaders, I will be asking unanimous consent that we take it up and pass it.

I see my distinguished colleague and friend on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have heard from many Vermonters concerned about the threat posed to our democracy by recent Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. Just as opponents of campaign finance reform in the past described a parade of horribles that would occur if we strengthened campaign finance protections, today we again hear those exaggerations from the other side of the aisle. Some Republicans have falsely asserted that this resolution would somehow repeal the First Amendment and would even result in the banning of books. That is pure hyperbole.

Restoring the role that Congress and the States have traditionally had to set reasonable limits on how much a corporation or a millionaire can spend to influence an election is simply not the equivalent of prohibiting an individual from speaking out on a candidate. The constitutional amendment before the Senate does not ban or proscribe anything. It restores the ability of future States or Congresses to set reasonable limits if they decide to act but of course those limits would be guided by the American peoples' desire for such laws.

Over the course of this debate, we have heard Senators talking as if the First Amendment is absolute. Most Americans can see right through this. They know that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography; or obscenity; or statements that incite imminent lawless action; or defamation or slander; or speech integral to criminal conduct; or fraudulent speech or perjury. And they know that the First Amendment is not violated when laws restrict even political speech by regulating the reasonable time, place, and manner of demonstrations or protests. The idea that any future law on campaign contributions and expenditures that has an incidental effect on speech somehow renders it the equivalent of censorship is just not a serious argument.

The Framers of our fundamental charter anticipated that it would need to be amended from time to time. The story of our how our Constitution has been amended over the years is a reflection on our democracy. It is a story of inclusion and expansion of our representative democracy. The 14th and 15th Amendments, for example, guaranteed equal protection of the law for all Americans, and ensured that all Americans have the right to vote regardless of their race. The 17th Amendment gave Americans the right to directly elect their representatives in Congress in the wake of concerns that corporations were corrupting state legislatures to choose Senators beholden to them. The 19th Amendment's expansion of the right to vote to women and the 26th Amendment's extension of the vote to young people made ours an even more representative democracy.

Those who oppose the amendment before us have made some outlandish claims. One of them was that we cannot consider this amendment because in their view it would be the first time that changes were made to the Bill of Rights. What is interesting is that opponents to previous constitutional amendments also claimed that they should not be adopted because they impacted the Bill of Rights. In the June hearing that I chaired before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Jamie Raskin testified that ``the people have been forced to amend the Constitution multiple times to reverse reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court that freeze into place the constitutional property rights and political privileges of the powerful against the powerless.'' The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, stripping the absolute individual ``property rights'' that white slave masters had enjoyed under the Fifth Amendment as found by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Similarly, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment completely blocked and made illegal any future compensation of slave masters for the confiscation of their vested ``property rights'' in their slaves. Not only did the 14th Amendment strip slave masters of their ``property,'' it also made it impossible for them to seek restitution under the Fifth Amendment. Opponents to the 13th and 14th Amendments felt that their rights, granted by the Bill of Rights, were being undermined but history showed that those Amendments were necessary to move this great Nation toward a more perfect union. The amendment before the Senate would restore the First Amendment. It would not repeal it. It would, however, overturn several Supreme Court decisions that have distorted the First Amendment. If we fail to do so, many of us are concerned that corruption will flourish and our democracy will be distorted away from the needs of hard working Americans.

Millions of Americans have called on Congress to restore the First Amendment so that our democracy will be protected against corruption and so that everyone's voices can be heard in our democratic process. I have served in the Senate for almost 40 years and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee for nearly 10. It is a rare moment for this Senator to acknowledge that the threat to our democracy is so significant that it warrants an amendment to our Constitution. I applaud the Vermonters who have taken action on this issue. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in voting for cloture and passage of this important constitutional amendment.

Madam President, over the past several months the world's attention has been focused on the Russian invasion of Crimea and fighting in the eastern Ukraine, the explosion of violence in Gaza, the flood of migrant children from Central America, and the horrific death and destruction in Iraq and Syria.

In each of these places vast numbers of innocent people have suffered terribly, and our own policies and capability to respond have been severely tested.

Yet one of the most urgent, difficult, and frightening challenges facing the world today is not the result of armed conflict or ethnic or religious extremism. It is the world's first Ebola epidemic, and it poses a potentially devastating threat to Africa and people everywhere.

Before the August recess we were preparing to receive dozens of African heads of state to Washington. At that time, Doctors Without Borders and other nongovernmental organizations had been ringing alarm bells for weeks about the worsening Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

But the World Health Organization and governments, including our own, were slow to respond to what was viewed as a manageable, localized public health problem, rather than a crisis that could spin out of control.

No longer. Infections and deaths in Liberia and Sierra Leone are increasing rapidly, with exponential acceleration in these countries and potentially in neighboring Guinea. Official reports may be only a piece of the picture. The ability of these countries to locate, diagnose, isolate and treat patients, trace and monitor contacts, and safely bury the dead cannot possibly keep pace.

Unfortunately, the lack of urgency exhibited by much of the international community was exacerbated by budget cuts at the World Health Organization, for which there is ample blame to go around. After the 2009 global financial crisis, WHO's budget dropped by roughly 1 billion dollars, nearly 25 percent of their budget today.

By the time of the current Ebola outbreak, staff levels at WHO had been cut by 35 percent, and their ability to prepare for and respond to health emergencies suffered accordingly.

Today, the Ebola crisis has the full attention of the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USAID, President Sirleaf of Liberia, and other governments. They recognize that unless aggressive, coordinated actions are taken immediately, there will soon be tens of thousands of cases, the disease will spread into much of Africa, and it will be an ongoing global threat for many years to come.

The challenges are immense: weak government institutions; dysfunctional public health systems that cannot conduct reliable disease surveillance and response; lack of roads and other basic infrastructure; ethnic and political divisions in societies recovering from war; misconceptions about the disease and low levels of literacy; and inadequate and uncoordinated international aid.

While the epidemic is finally beginning to receive the attention it deserves, it is spiraling out of control. Huge numbers of cases are overwhelming local capacity to isolate and treat patients, trace their contacts, and safely bury the dead. The cost of personal protection gear is exorbitant and there is an acute shortage of trained people.

Also, the secondary effects of this crisis are increasingly apparent. Food insecurity is worsening and the economies of these countries, already fragile, are facing collapse as imports and exports are plummeting.

We and others have the knowledge and tools to contain and control this disease if cases are quickly isolated and contacts identified, but actions to date have not been well coordinated and have not always addressed the most urgent needs.

Just as for a raging wildfire, the focus should be on deploying all available resources to provide immediate support for urgent needs identified on the front lines to stop its spread, while there is time. It will require mobilization of the type and complexity as occurred after the Haiti earthquake.

In West Africa, that means immediately scaling up staff, transport, isolation and treatment capacity, infection control including personal protective equipment for health workers, funding through rapid and flexible funding mechanisms, training and supervision, laboratory services, communications resources, and management and logistics support.

There is nothing new about this approach. But it is required on a far larger scale than was used to control Ebola outbreaks in the past.

The situation today is grave, but we can prevent many of these deaths. And as we do so we need to help build stronger public health systems that can contain future disease outbreaks.

Past efforts to build capacity have clearly been woefully inadequate. As public health systems in these countries have been overwhelmed by Ebola, patients suffering from malaria, TB, pneumonia, and other illnesses are unable to get treatment.

We should all pay tribute to the courageous public health workers who have risked their lives--and in many cases, lost their lives--trying to save others from this terrible disease. It is inspiring to read the stories of nurses and doctors, and those who dig the graves and bury the dead, who have labored on as their colleagues have died, who live with the daily reality that at any moment they could be next. They are as brave as any soldier on the front lines of battle.

I also want to commend President Sirleaf, her Minister of Defense, and others who have tried their best to deal with this unprecedented emergency in the face of woefully inadequate resources.

The United Nations says that $600 million is needed immediately to fight this disease. The United States has already provided tens of millions of dollars. USAID announced another $75 million last week. The White House has requested additional funding for CDC, which would bring the U.S. contribution to over $250 million.

The Department of Defense announced that it will provide logistical, laboratory, and other support. The World Bank has pledged over $200 million. Other governments are also coming forward, as are private donors. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently pledged $50 million to enhance response efforts and accelerate research on potential treatments and vaccines.

The Congress has a role to play, and I am hopeful that as additional funds are needed we will act responsibly and provide them. I am a cosponsor of S. Res. 541, which recounts the history of this outbreak and the steps that are urgently needed to control it. I commend Senators Coons, Durbin, Menendez and others who introduced it. This is not a partisan or political issue. It is a public health issue, a moral issue, and one that should unite us all to do what is necessary to defeat this epidemic.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate passed a resolution recognizing the life and career of Senator Jim Jeffords. This Vermont icon passed away over the August recess, nearly 8 years after concluding a decades-long career in public service. That career, marked by historic moments on the national stage, was one in which Vermont came first. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Burlington Free Press, ``Tributes pour in for Vermont GOP giant Jeffords,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Jim and I came to Washington together in 1975, he to represent Vermont as our lone Member in the House of Representatives, and I as Vermont's first Democratic Senator. But our years working together go back further, to the days when I was a State's attorney in Chittenden County, and he the State's attorney general. Our families knew each other. Marcelle and Liz knew each other well, having both attended Cathedral High School in Burlington. Both Jim and I would readily acknowledge that our wives were the hearts and souls of our families.

That longtime relationship served us and Vermont well when Jim came to the Senate in 1989. Together, we worked to protect Vermont's dairy farmers, to preserve Vermont's celebrated natural landscape, and to give Vermont a strong and powerful voice in Washington.

I joined many Vermonters in celebrating Jim's life last month in his home town of Rutland. Our sympathies are with his children Laura and Leonard, and his grandchildren.

Jim was a humble man, a Vermonter through and through, and a true friend. His legacy is that he held Vermont in his heart, and worked to advance the best interests of his constituents on the national stage.

For that, this Vermonter will join many others in simply saying, ``Thanks, Jim.''

Madam President, Vermont has always been a farming State, and it is the dairy, livestock, vegetable, and fruit farms to which we owe thanks for the open pastures and spectacular vistas that Vermonters and all those who visit our State cherish. None is more beautiful than Meeting House Farm in Norwich, owned by Deb and Jay Van Arman. The farm, located on a hill outside of the village, with an expansive view down the beautiful Connecticut River Valley, has been in the family since Deb's and her brother David Pierce's grandparents arrived in a Sears, Roebuck & Company wagon from Quechee in 1914.

On Saturday, August 2, Deb, Jay and David hosted a centennial reunion for a grateful crowd of family and friends who came from as far as California, Holland and South America. The reunion was a celebration of farming, family, and community for those who grew up on or visited the farm over the years. They shared stories of haying and collecting maple sap with Deb and David's father ``Bub,'' riding the tractor and collecting eggs, and sitting around the kitchen table sharing one of their mother Janet's bountiful meals. Janet ran a day care at the farm for local children and later became Norwich's beloved town clerk.

The dairy herd was sold in the 1980s, but the haying goes on. There are goats and Deb's big vegetable garden, and half a dozen Holstein cows from another farm graze the hillside. Meeting House Farm represents the best of Vermont, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the Pierce-Van Arman family for keeping it a farm all these years.

I ask unanimous consent that an article about the centennial on the front page of the August 3rd Valley News be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached documentation from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I know we are going to hold our first vote relevant to S.J. Res. 19 later today, so let me speak about that for a few minutes. It is a constitutional amendment. It is something rare here, but this would restore to Congress and the States the authority to set reasonable limits on contributions and expenditures in our elections. The amendment would also allow Congress and the States to distinguish between natural persons and corporations when shaping legislation regarding the financing of elections.

Both the States and the national government have exercised this power for a long time in a responsible way until a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices ignored history, and, worse than that, they ignored the Court's own precedent. These Court opinions have now eviscerated campaign finance laws, and they have invited corruption into our political system. If we do not respond, we will continue on a path back to the days when only the wealthy few had access to our government. If we do not respond, corruption will flourish and hard-working Americans will lose any remaining faith they have in their elected officials. So I believe it is time to restore some sanity to our campaign finance laws but also to restore the true meaning and intent of the First Amendment.

I came to the Senate in January 1975, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Americans were voicing concerns about the integrity and honesty of their elected leaders. They were concerned about the corrupting influence of anonymous money flowing into elections. The public's confidence in our democratic institutions was at a low point, so Congress passed the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. As a freshman Senator--in fact, the junior most Member of the Senate--I was proud to vote for this law.

Decades later Democrats and Republicans again came together in 2002 to pass the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It targeted the use of soft money donations and the unlimited spending that could be done anonymously, used to finance attack ads before an election. Just as we did in the wake of Watergate, our bipartisan effort recognized the need to pass important campaign finance reforms to protect our democracy from corruption and to preserve access to our popular democracy.

But it appears today that many of our elected officials and a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court no longer even acknowledge the corrosive influence of unfettered, anonymous money flowing in to fund our elections. Anonymous money--somebody can try to buy an election, and they do not even have to put their fingerprints on it. They just spend the money. They can say it is the Committee to Bring Honesty and Openness to Government even though it might be funded by a group who wants just the opposite.

Over the last decade a slim majority of the Supreme Court has issued one dreadful campaign finance decision after another. In fact, in 2010, in a 5-to-4 ruling--five Republicans on the Supreme Court--in Citizens United, the Court reversed a century of precedent by declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance and influence elections. In effect, they said corporations were people. I have said this many times before, and sometimes people chuckle, but stop and think about it. This country elected General Eisenhower as President. If you really listen to what the Supreme Court said, we could elect General Electric to be President or General Motors to be President.

In this past year the same five Justices held that aggregate limits on campaign contributions are now somehow a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, if you are running in a local election somewhere where people would normally spend $300 or $400, but it is critical because that local board may decide what the tax policy of a big corporation might be in that community, they could say: OK, people running the board are going to spend $300 or $400 each. We will just put $1 million in to elect a different board that will give us a $10 million tax break.

The Court's radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment contradicts the principles of freedom, equality, and self-government upon which this Nation was founded. The consequence of the Court's opinions is that a small, tiny minority of very wealthy individuals and special interests are drowning out the voices of hard-working Americans and skewing our electoral process. What they are saying is: I have millions of dollars. I have a voice in elections. You? You are just an average hard-working man or woman, and you do not have any voice.

The expressed justification for time-honored campaign finance laws has been a genuine concern about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But despite this well-founded concern, Justice Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United nonsensically confined corruption to mean only quid pro quo corruption or bribery. In doing so, these five Justices discarded what our very

Founders understood to be the meaning of corruption. They have also rejected the definition of corruption upon which this Court has historically relied. As recently as 2003 when the Court initially upheld the McCain-Feingold Act before striking much of it down later, the Court stated:

In speaking of `improper influence' and opportunities for

abuse' in addition to `quid pro quo arrangements,' we [have]

recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public

officials, but extending to the broader threat from

politicians too compliant with the wishes of large

contributors.

In fact, I look at the distinguished Presiding Officer--a man who served with such great distinction as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia--and I think about the jury verdict handed down last week against another former Republican Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it reminds us that when elected officials grant political favors in exchange for gifts and money, it certainly threatens the functioning of our democracy. What Justice Kennedy and those who joined with him fail to recognize is that more subtle forms of corruption are also corrosive and undermine public confidence.

Way back in the last century, we changed the Constitution to allow the direct election of Senators. One of the motivating factors was that in one State--at that time the legislatures appointed Senators--in one State, one major corporation in the mining industry so controlled the legislature that it picked who were going to be the Senators. We changed that because we said everybody should have a voice.

States and future Congresses should be able to recognize that corruption extends to the idea that money--particularly unregulated campaign contributions--buys access and influences the political process in disproportionate ways for a wealthy few.

This ``pay to play'' notion is corrosive to our democracy. The size of your bank account should not determine whether and how the government responds to your needs. The government should be there for all Americans, not just the most wealthy. Vermonters understand this. They have led the way by speaking out forcefully about the devastating impact of these Supreme Court decisions. So we ought to start listening to our constituents. We ought to vote to protect our democracy against corruption. We ought to restore democracy for all Americans.

Some have argued that money is speech so we should not allow the States or Congress to limit any spending in our elections. As Justice Stevens said in his testimony before the Rules Committee, ``while money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself.'' This is exactly right.

I have also heard the argument that this proposed amendment would silence nonprofit advocacy groups like the NAACP and the Sierra Club because it allows Congress and the States to distinguish between corporations and actual individuals. Do not believe it. Until Citizens United, prohibitions on corporate and union political spending were the norm at the Federal level and in many states. Those prohibitions never stopped nonprofit groups from engaging in vigorous issue advocacy. Nor would this amendment.

Moreover, I have received a letter of support signed by both the NAACP and the Sierra Club, among many others, that openly advocate for this proposed amendment. If this proposed amendment would have the potential effect of silencing their organizations, why would they support it?

For those who claim the threat of these Supreme Court decisions is not sufficient to warrant a constitutional amendment, let's get the facts straight. Even incremental measures to simply increase the transparency of the flood of money pouring into our elections have been repeatedly filibustered by Republicans. In fact, many of us have tried for years to pass a law to require greater transparency and disclosure of political spending. I have tried to practice what I have preached. I have disclosed every cent ever contributed to me, including one time for one for about 40 or 50 cents. It cost us more to disclose it than what it was, but I wanted people to know exactly who had contributed to my campaign. We tried to have that kind of disclosure.

Republicans have repeatedly filibustered that legislation, known aptly as the DISCLOSE Act. The statutory approach would allow the American people to at least know who is pouring money into the electoral system. It is bad enough that they can pour in an unlimited amount of money, but we ought to at least know who is doing it and why they are doing it.

I hope we will be able to convince enough Republicans to join this effort to overcome the Republican filibuster of a modest transparency bill. But because the Supreme Court based its rulings on a flawed interpretation of the First Amendment, a statutory fix alone will not suffice. Only a constitutional amendment can overturn the Supreme Court's devastating campaign finance decisions.

Our proposal to amend the Constitution simply restores the ability of future lawmakers--Republicans and Democrats--at both the Federal and State levels to rein in the influence that billionaires and corporations now have on our elections. It is necessary to restore the First Amendment so all voices can be heard in the democratic process, whether you are a millionaire or not, and it is vital to ensure that corruption does not flourish.

I hope Senators will join with me on this vote.

I do not see anybody seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today we will finally vote on the confirmation of Jill Pryor of Georgia to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Her nomination has been pending in the Senate since February 2012--more than two and one-half years, which is longer than any other currently pending judicial nominee. She received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously well qualified and has the support of both of her Republican home State Senators--Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. Rather than vote to confirm her before the August recess, some Senate Republicans continued their senseless obstruction to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent by filibustering her nomination for the sake of delay.

Despite this unyielding partisan strategy, the Senate has made great strides to fill vacancies on courts around the Nation. This year the Senate has confirmed 61 nominees to the circuit and district courts and in doing so, it has hit an historic milestone for diversity on the Federal appeals courts. More women and people of color are serving on the Federal appellate bench than ever before. Today I am happy that we will add to this laudable record with yet another well-qualified nominee.

From the outset, President Obama has understood that our Federal courts should reflect the diverse communities that it serves. He has nominated more women and more lawyers of color than any previous President in American history. Since the first day of the Obama administration, former Senate staffer Christopher Kang has worked with home State Senators to implement President Obama's goal of finding judicial nominees who not only embody the necessary integrity, intellect, and commitment to the rule of law, but who are also drawn from diverse backgrounds. I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Jill Pryor of Georgia and to agree to votes on the remaining district court judges on the calendar without delay.

Mr. President, true to their Vermont roots, the citizens of Marshfield, VT, are bringing to fruition a new vision for the Marshfield Historical Society, an organization dedicated to preserving--and sharing--the long history of this 44-square mile town in the foothills of Vermont, just outside our State capital of Montpelier.

In the late 17th century, the land that came to be known as Marshfield was home to the Abenaki. Then, just as now, its inhabitants enjoyed the Winooski River to fish and the surrounding hills to hunt. Marshfield is a community that upholds tradition and passes stories from generation to generation. The land is clearly different than it was centuries ago, but these customs can make it difficult to notice the sometimes subtle changes Marshfield has borne. Creating a public space to commemorate the town's past is the mission of the Marshfield Historical Society.

On September 12, with the support of the Vermont Historical Society, the Marshfield Historical Society will host its grand opening, a reopening of sorts. In concert with the support of the local Selectboard, the Jaquith Public Library, a generous anonymous donor, the perseverance of a dedicated core of volunteers, and, of course, the residents of Marshfield, the history of this small but vibrant town will now be accessible to the public. Local artifacts and memorabilia, cloistered for years, will be publicly accessible in the Old Schoolhouse Common. The Marshfield Historical Society is returning to the residents of Marshfield their own history.

The Marshfield Historical Society owes much to the memory of Hap Hayward, a longtime resident, who was an original inspiration for the establishment of a local historical society. The society's new site, organized content, and new exhibits will surely attract visitors and locals. Some of their most noteworthy collections include a rare copy of Militia Law of the State of Vermont from 1843, as well as an extensive collection of postcards of Marshfield buildings and landscapes. These artifacts belong to the residents of Marshfield, and to all Vermonters. As a longtime supporter of the historic preservation of our communities, our downtowns and our local histories, I am eager to visit the new historical society.

I congratulate the people of Marshfield on successfully undertaking this impressive effort to protect their history for generations to come.

Mr. President, I am glad that people have decided to speak about immigration reform.

This body passed overwhelmingly--Republicans and Democrats joined together--a comprehensive immigration bill last year.

We did it after six hearings during which we received testimony from 42 witnesses. We had five markups and 37 hours of debate, often late into the night, over three weeks. There were 212 amendments, of which 136 were adopted, all but three of them on a bipartisan bases. Staff and Senators, Republicans and Democrats, worked together throughout that time, and the Senate, by a better than 2-to-1 margin, passed a comprehensive immigration bill. It was supported by people from the right to the left.

It went over to the other body. In the other body there were enough votes to pass it. And what happened? The Republican leadership said: No, we will not bring it up. And so it died there.

Today, faced with a surge of migrants from Central America, they are giving great speeches: Oh, my God. We have to do something about immigration. Why don't we do something about immigration? And then they blame Democratic President Obama.

My response is: What are you doing? They could have brought up the bill. We would be a lot better off had they brought it up and voted on it. Vote yes or vote no. That is what we are supposed to do. The Senate did that, and we passed it.

The Republican leadership is so afraid they might actually have to take a stand on immigration. They might actually have to vote yes or no. It is so much easier to do nothing, just to let it sit there and say: Oh, it must be President Obama's fault. Oh, it must be the Senate's fault. Oh, it must be somebody else's fault. Or maybe it is the fault of these 6- and 7-year-old children who are trying to escape being killed or molested, the 12-year-old girls who are afraid they are going to be raped by gangs, the 12-year-old boys who are going to be forced into gangs or be shot in front of their families.

It is so much easier to say: This is terrible. It has to be President Obama's fault. Let's sue him.

What I say is: Why don't you have the courage to vote yes or no on the immigration bill we sent you?

I defy any one of them to go home during August and say: Oh, we have to do something about immigration. I hope people ask: How did you vote? Well, they didn't vote yes and they didn't vote no. They didn't vote at all.

I spoke in this Chamber earlier this month about the importance of living up to our own principles and traditions by addressing the influx of unaccompanied Central American children because it is a humanitarian crisis.

While there is no easy solution, the Border Supplemental Appropriations Bill offers a chance to make a downpayment on a strategy to address this crisis comprehensively, in accordance with our legal obligations and moral values.

The supplemental was described by the Appropriations Committee chairwoman Senator Mikulski yesterday. We know it is significantly different than the bill put forward by the House Republican leadership this week. The House bill provides $1 billion less than the Senate to help unaccompanied children currently in the United States and $700 million less to support the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice so they can effectively address this issue and adjudicate these children's cases appropriately.

There is nobody in this body or the other body, if they have children or grandchildren, who has to worry about them going hungry or has to worry about them living in fear every day. Let's get out of our ivory tower and pay attention to what is happening.

As I said earlier, the House ignored our bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. Thirty pages of policy reforms included in the House supplemental and all it does is support their enforcement-only agenda to get rid of these children. Just throw them out. Let's pretend we have no responsibility. Send them back to face whatever horrors back home.

While many of these children and families don't qualify for international protection and would be better off not risking the dangerous journey, which the Senate bill seeks to address, many others have legitimate claims to protection because of the violence and persecution they have suffered in their home countries.

That is why this is a humanitarian issue. That is why we can't expect other countries with far fewer resources--such as Jordan or Turkey or Ethiopia--to accept far larger numbers of refugees from outside their borders if we are not willing to do our part.

The little country of Jordan is being overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria. We say: Oh, thank you for doing that. Here we are talking about a tiny percentage compared to the size of our country. We say we want other countries to do this--but, gosh, the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world can't. That's not who we are as Americans.

That is why it is unconscionable that the House on the one hand recognizes these Central American countries are among the most dangerous in the world, where gangs and other violent crime is taking a horrific toll on children and families. They will give speeches on that, but on the other hand they will say: However, that is their problem. Send these children back. Eight-year-old, you can fend for yourself against the gangs with machine guns. Go back, and do it as quickly as possible because we have to go on recess. We don't want to be bothered about you.

That is why it is also unacceptable that the House would pay for their misguided approach in part by cutting nearly $200 million from other programs in the foreign aid budget, the very funding needed to help reduce poverty, corruption, and violence in Central America so children won't flee in the first place.

Critics of the administration want to point fingers, but blame games aren't going to solve this problem. There is no single cause. It didn't occur overnight. It has been building for years as drug cartels, responding to the insatiable demand for illegal drugs in the United States, have migrated to Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador.

It is caused by members of Central American gangs, arrested and imprisoned in the United States and then deported, who have resumed their threats and extortion and killing sprees with a vengeance.

It is caused by abusive and corrupt police forces and judges and the failure of the Central American governments to address the lawlessness and impunity in their own countries.

It is caused by the lack of educational and employment opportunities that are among the reasons Central American youth join the gangs.

So let's not play politics over something as complex and deadly as this. Let's vote for the Senate supplemental. It includes the funding needed to begin addressing some of the contributing causes of the migration and leaves intact the important legal protections in the Trafficking Victims Protections Act.

The $300 million in the State and foreign operations chapter of this bill requires a multiyear strategy to support the efforts of Central American governments to dismantle their criminal gangs and combat extortion, human smuggling and trafficking and domestic and sexual abuse, strengthen their social services, law enforcement, and judicial systems, develop child welfare services, and expand programs in education and get rid of the barriers to economic growth and opportunity.

It also provides funds for public information campaigns to discourage potential migrants from making the perilous journey in the first place, and it includes provisions that will ensure vigorous oversight of the aid we provide.

The emergency spending in this supplemental is needed to respond urgently and responsibly to this crisis. It

is about what we stand for as Americans. Let's uphold our Nation's longstanding tradition of providing a safe haven for refugees that is engraved in the Statue of Liberty, for the well-being of thousands who have fled violence and risked everything to arrive at our borders, and for the millions in Central America who live every day in fear. Let's give them some hope for a better life. Let's pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, for the fifth year in a row, more than a dozen qualified, consensus judicial nominees pending before the full Senate will remain on the Executive Calendar during the August recess. Each year, I have come before the Senate to remind my fellow Senators that their refusal to take action on these nominations prior to the August recess is an unfortunate departure from Senate tradition and to urge them to stop their obstructive practices and delay tactics. Again, I am disappointed to see partisanship and senseless obstruction

continue to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent.

We could be voting today to confirm 13 nominees to serve on our Federal courts, 12 of whom were reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. Instead, we are voting to invoke cloture on only one nomination, that of Jill Pryor, to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She has received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' and has the support of both of her Republican home State Senators. She will no doubt be confirmed unanimously, or near unanimously, when we return in September. As the senior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, noted at her confirmation hearing, ``Jill Pryor has been in private practice in Atlanta for nearly 25 years. During that time she has played a pivotal role in some of the largest and most complex cases in Georgia history.'' We have before us an outstanding candidate to serve on the Federal bench. Yet her nomination is being filibustered by Senate Republicans who are delaying her vote for the sake of obstruction.

Despite this unyielding and irrational partisan strategy, the Senate has made great strides to fill vacancies on courts around the Nation by confirming 61 circuit and district court nominees this year. I have heard some Republican Senators point to these confirmations to claim that today's Senate is treating judicial nominees fairly. These Senators overlook an important truth: This progress was made because of the persistent dedication of the majority leader and Democratic Senators to confront vacancies on the Federal bench and despite the unprecedented levels of opposition and obstruction from Republican Senators.

Because of our Democratic leadership in the Senate, there are now fewer vacancies on the Federal courts than at any time since January 2009. Since the beginning of this year, we have reduced the vacancies on our Federal courts by over a third, from 92 to 57, and reduced the number of judicial emergency vacancies by nearly half, from 37 to 19. There are now only eight vacancies on the U.S. courts of appeals. Not since December 1990--over 23 years ago--have there been so few. This is real progress for the millions of Americans who depend on our courts for justice.

Many of these confirmations were of nominees to courts that began the year with record-high numbers of vacancies. In Arizona, I worked with Senator McCain and Senator Flake to confirm six nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies on their district court. In Florida, I worked with Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio to confirm seven nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida as well as on the Eleventh Circuit. These States are success stories, and the people of Arizona and Florida are better served for having trial and appellate judges ready to hear their cases.

No Senator should believe, however, that our work is done. There are 13 judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor who should be confirmed without delay. Yet, even if the Senate were to confirm these nominees today, the Federal judiciary would remain understaffed. In addition to the 57 current vacancies, the Judicial Conference has identified the need for 91 new judgeships in some of America's judicial districts and circuits with the most burdensome 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 only underscore how, despite the 61 judicial confirmations so far in 2014, the Senate continues to fall short of its obligations to the Federal judiciary and the American people. I have heard some Republican Senators claim the opposite by citing the total judicial confirmation figures of current and former Presidents. It is true that the Senate has now confirmed 277 of President Obama's circuit, district, and U.S. Court of International Trade nominees, compared to 253 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 57 vacancies on the Federal bench--far more than the 42 vacancies at this point during the Bush administration. There are an additional 24 announced future vacancies on our Federal courts that will also need to be filled in the coming months.

Vacancies remain high not because of a failure of Senate Democrats or President Obama to make judicial confirmations a priority; Americans seeking justice around the country face delays 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 DC 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 the Senate Judiciary Committee to report them again this year.

This year, Senate Republicans have proceeded to filibuster each and every judicial nominee. After today, the Senate will have taken 62 cloture votes on judicial nominations so far this year, amounting to well over 400 wasted hours the Senate should have spent 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 result of these tactics has been high vacancy levels on the Federal courts. The implications of these vacancies were made clear by a recent Brennan Center for Justice paper titled ``The Impact of Judicial Vacancies on Federal Trial Courts.'' In it, judges and attorneys in districts with high levels of vacancies describe the way empty court rooms slow the administration of justice, ``raise the cost of litigation, cause evidence to go stale, make it harder to settle civil cases, and even put pressure on criminal defendants to plead guilty.'' Chief Judge Leonard Davis in the Eastern District of Texas said the impact of vacancies comes down to ``simple math.'' Vacancies lead to heavier caseloads and judges ``have less time to give to [an individual] case . . . It affects the quality of justice that's being dispensed and the quantity of work you can complete.''

The incredible burden facing Federal courts in Texas is understandable with its nine current district court vacancies--more than any other State. Therefore, I hope that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including both Senators from Texas, will be ready to proceed with a hearing on the three pending Texas district court nominees as soon as the Senate returns to session in September. I also hope that the Texas Senators will continue to work with the administration on nominees to fill the six other current district vacancies in their State as well as the four known future district court vacancies.

The continued high number of vacancies across our Federal courts is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every Member of this body. The Senate should act quickly to confirm the consensus nominees pending on the Senate floor. The Senate should also pass the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 to ensure that our coequal branch of government has the resources it needs to serve its constitutionally mandated function.

I am glad that we are voting to overcome the Republican filibuster of the nomination of Jill Pryor, and I thank the majority leader for taking action on her nomination. If the Senate were operating as it once did, without this partisan treatment of judicial nominations, she would have been confirmed weeks ago.

I hope that in the weeks following the August recess Senators will start working together to continue the progress we have made so far in 2014. The American people deserve courts capable of providing access to swift justice, not empty courtrooms and delays.

Mr. President, today, I introduce the Captive Insurers Clarification Act. This simple, commonsense legislation will clarify terms included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that stand to threaten the viability of the captive insurance industry in Vermont, South Carolina, and across the country. I am glad to have Senator Graham's support in this effort.

Vermont is one of the leading onshore captive insurance domiciles in the country, with over 1000 licensed captive insurance companies. I have heard from the captive industry in Vermont, understandably concerned that language included in the Dodd-Frank Act may result in the double taxation of captives that operate in states where their headquarters are not domiciled. The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, NRRA, as included in Dodd-Frank, intended to facilitate the proper collection and allocation of self-procurement taxes. Captives are taxed and regulated in the state in which they are domiciled, not necessarily where their corporate headquarters are located. However, due to the ambiguity of the NRRA, captive insurers are concerned that both the state in which a captive is headquartered, and the state in which the captive is domiciled, may claim the premium tax.

The Captive Insurers Clarification Act would simply clarify that such companies were never intended to be included under the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act. Applying the NRRA to captives would eliminate the specialized regulation of the captive industry that states like Vermont have worked to cultivate.

This is commonsense legislation to clarify the intention of Congress in passing the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, and I hope Members of Congress will support its enactment.

Mr. President, today, I introduce the Captive Insurers Clarification Act. This simple, commonsense legislation will clarify terms included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that stand to threaten the viability of the captive insurance industry in Vermont, South Carolina, and across the country. I am glad to have Senator Graham's support in this effort.

Vermont is one of the leading onshore captive insurance domiciles in the country, with over 1000 licensed captive insurance companies. I have heard from the captive industry in Vermont, understandably concerned that language included in the Dodd-Frank Act may result in the double taxation of captives that operate in states where their headquarters are not domiciled. The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, NRRA, as included in Dodd-Frank, intended to facilitate the proper collection and allocation of self-procurement taxes. Captives are taxed and regulated in the state in which they are domiciled, not necessarily where their corporate headquarters are located. However, due to the ambiguity of the NRRA, captive insurers are concerned that both the state in which a captive is headquartered, and the state in which the captive is domiciled, may claim the premium tax.

The Captive Insurers Clarification Act would simply clarify that such companies were never intended to be included under the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act. Applying the NRRA to captives would eliminate the specialized regulation of the captive industry that states like Vermont have worked to cultivate.

This is commonsense legislation to clarify the intention of Congress in passing the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, and I hope Members of Congress will support its enactment.