Floor Statements

Madam President, the judges that fill the two Federal district court seats in my home State have an extraordinary impact on the lives of Vermonters. So when I learned that one of my dearest friends, Judge William Sessions, was to take senior status after 18 years of distinguished service on the Vermont district court, I took seriously my responsibility to act swiftly to identify a candidate to recommend to President Obama for nomination. I worked with Senator Sanders, Representative Welch, and the Vermont Bar Association to convene a nonpartisan merit commission to find highly qualified candidates.

So I again thank the nine members of the nonpartisan Vermont Judicial Selection Commission, under the leadership of Peter Van Oot, for the time, effort, and insight they invested in the screening process. We are fortunate in our small State of Vermont to have so many highly qualified lawyers in the field of applicants willing to serve in such a demanding post. There were a number of highly qualified people. After being vetted and recommended to me by the commission, I recommended Justice Geoffrey Crawford to President Obama. I told the President I was not surprised that after the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary finished its vetting, they gave him their highest rating of unanimously well qualified.

Justice Crawford has significant criminal and civil experience. He was a Vermont trial court judge for 11 years and recently became an Associate Justice on the Vermont Supreme Court. He formerly was a partner in a Burlington law firm. Justice Crawford earned his B.A., cum laude, from Yale University and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School. Following law school he served as a law clerk to Judge Albert Coffrin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

I did not know Justice Crawford personally before this process, but when I did meet him I was struck by his brilliance, compassion, and humility. Justice Crawford earned a stellar reputation in Vermont's legal community, and also from those who had appeared before him, as a careful jurist who understands the effects that legal rulings have on people's lives. I have no doubt that once confirmed he will bring that same understanding and impartiality to the Federal bench.

The Judiciary Committee favorably reported Justice Crawford's nomination unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate. Justice Crawford, like the three other nominees we will vote on today, has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy. He is a qualified uncontroversial nominee with the full support of his home state Senators. He and the three other nominees deserve to be confirmed without delay.

I thank the majority leader for bringing these nominations up for a vote and urge Senators to vote to defeat

these filibusters and get these nominees working for the American people in courthouses around the Nation. Justice Geoffrey Crawford will serve Vermont well as a Federal district judge, and I look forward to his confirmation.

Madam President, I don't see anyone else at the moment, so I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nominations of three judicial nominees to serve on the U.S. districts courts: Judge Salvador Mendoza, to serve in the Eastern District of Washington, Staci Yandle, to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Illinois, and Judge Darrin Gayles, to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. Each of these nominees has the support of their home State Senators, and each was reported over a month ago with unanimous or nearly unanimous approval of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of these qualified nominees deserved to be filibustered yesterday, and should be confirmed without delay.

The confirmation of these nominees will be historic milestones for diversity on the Federal bench. If confirmed, Judge Mendoza would be the first Latino to serve on the Federal bench in the Eastern District of Washington. The confirmation of Staci Yandle would make her the first African-American woman ever to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois, as well as the first openly gay Federal judge to serve in Illinois. And, if confirmed, Judge Gayles would be the first openly gay African-American man judge to ever serve on the Federal bench. It is important that the Federal bench reflects the diversity of the American people, and we should be proud of the progress we are making today.

Judge Salvador Mendoza has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Judge Mendoza has served since 2013 as a Washington State superior court judge in Benton and Franklin Counties. He previously served as a judge pro tempore in Benton and Franklin Counties from 2002 to 2013. In 2002, he helped start the Benton-Franklin Juvenile Drug Court program, a treatment-based program intended to be an alternative to full criminal prosecution. Before his time

as a judge, he worked in private practice as the president and managing attorney of Mendoza and Johnson, P.S. from 2002 to 2013. He served as vice president at Haney and Mendoza, P.S. from 1999 to 2002. After graduating from law school, he served as assistant attorney general in the Washington State Attorney General's Office from 1997 to 1998, and as the deputy prosecuting attorney in the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office from 1998 to 1999. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably with near-unanimous bipartisan support to the full Senate on April 3, 2014.

Staci Yandle has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Staci Yandle has worked since 2007 in private practice as a sole practitioner, and since 2010 as counsel for the Farrise Firm P.C. She previously served as a partner at The Rex Carr Law Firm from 2003 to 2007 and as an associate at Carr, Korein, Schlichter, Kunin, Montroy, Glass & Bogard from 1987 to 2003. She worked as an adjunct professor at the St. Louis University School of Law from 1991 to 2000, teaching courses in trial advocacy and civil practice. From 1992 to 1996, she served as a member of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Staci Yandle has been active in her community, providing pro bono legal services to indigent clients on issues ranging from tenant disputes to personal injury claims. She has the support of her home State Senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination favorably with near-unanimous bipartisan support to the full Senate on April 3, 2014.

Judge Darrin Gayles has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He has served since 2011 as a Florida State judge on the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, and previously served as a county judge in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida from 2004 to 2011. Prior to becoming a judge, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 1999 to 2004, an assistant district counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1997 to 1999, and as an assistant State attorney in the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office from 1993 to 1997. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on May 8, 2014.

I commend the majority leader for bringing the nominations of these three nominees up for a vote. With yesterday's cloture votes, the Senate has voted on cloture for judicial nominees 50 times so far this year. This is more than all the cloture votes on judicial nominees during the two preceding administrations combined. This level of partisanship is meritless, and only serves to weaken the Federal courts and the American justice system. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm these qualified nominees, and allow them to get to work for the American people.

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

Mr President, in recent months, we have seen an outpouring of public support for maintaining meaningful open Internet rules. Americans are speaking loud and clear--they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. I agree, which is why today I am proud to join my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission FCC, to ban pay-to-play deals on the Internet.

Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler began a proceeding to consider new open Internet rules, nearly 300,000 Americans have commented on his proposal. They are concerned that the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications in order to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world.

A pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to

consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies should have the same protections that allowed a company like Vermont's Dealer.com to become a thriving success.

Such arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. If the FCC clears the way for pay-to-play deals, whole swaths of the Internet could become functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today and we must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which I am introducing with Congresswoman Matsui today, is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules as an excuse for the FCC to not take any action that will protect consumers and innovators. The FCC should act now to ban these deals. I appreciate that Chairman Wheeler is asking whether they should be banned outright in the current open Internet proceeding. The overwhelming response from the American people is that they should be.

The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates outside of the Beltway, and with good reason--most Americans interact with the Internet as part of their daily lives. The issue of how we protect and promote an open Internet is crucial to our culture and our economy. I want to make sure that stakeholders from outside of Washington have an opportunity to show policymakers and regulators here that their decisions will have a significant impact throughout the country. That is why I am holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing on July 1 at the University of Vermont.

There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue. I urge the Senate to pass this constructive legislative response.

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

Mr President, in recent months, we have seen an outpouring of public support for maintaining meaningful open Internet rules. Americans are speaking loud and clear--they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. I agree, which is why today I am proud to join my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission FCC, to ban pay-to-play deals on the Internet.

Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler began a proceeding to consider new open Internet rules, nearly 300,000 Americans have commented on his proposal. They are concerned that the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications in order to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world.

A pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to

consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies should have the same protections that allowed a company like Vermont's Dealer.com to become a thriving success.

Such arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. If the FCC clears the way for pay-to-play deals, whole swaths of the Internet could become functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today and we must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which I am introducing with Congresswoman Matsui today, is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules as an excuse for the FCC to not take any action that will protect consumers and innovators. The FCC should act now to ban these deals. I appreciate that Chairman Wheeler is asking whether they should be banned outright in the current open Internet proceeding. The overwhelming response from the American people is that they should be.

The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates outside of the Beltway, and with good reason--most Americans interact with the Internet as part of their daily lives. The issue of how we protect and promote an open Internet is crucial to our culture and our economy. I want to make sure that stakeholders from outside of Washington have an opportunity to show policymakers and regulators here that their decisions will have a significant impact throughout the country. That is why I am holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing on July 1 at the University of Vermont.

There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue. I urge the Senate to pass this constructive legislative response.

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

Madam President, of the many global challenges we face, protecting the environment should find support in all corners of the world. Similarly, we should support those who work on behalf of the environment.

Unfortunately, in some countries, environmental activists are threatened and imprisoned. Such is the case in Russia, where, in the shadow of the Olympic Games in Sochi this past winter, Suren Gazaryan and Evgeny Vitishko were ruthlessly harassed by government officials for their investigative work on the large-scale construction of Olympic facilities that caused significant environmental damage to protected lands. Both were convicted in 2012 of damaging a fence in a forest near the city of Krasnodar, a charge they both deny, and sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp, suspended.

Mr. Gazaryan, a recipient of the prestigious 2014 Goldman Prize for grassroots efforts to protect and enhance the environment, has sought political asylum in neighboring Estonia. Evgeny Vitishko, however, was not fortunate enough to escape and is still paying the price for his work. On February 12, a Russian judge, upholding a decision that Mr. Vitishko violated a curfew clause in his parole agreement, ordered him to serve his 3-year prison sentence. Perhaps not coincidentally, this came as he and his organization, Environmental Watch of the North Caucasus, were preparing to release a report on the damaging effects of construction in Sochi.

I want other Senators to know of Mr. Gazaryan and Mr. Vitishko, and hope that calling attention to them and their work might cause the Russian authorities to recognize that their responsibility is to uphold the law and protect the environment on behalf of the Russian people, not to persecute Russian citizens who have the courage to do so themselves.

Madam President, on June 12, 1967, during a period of significant political and racial tension in our Nation, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia that overturned laws banning interracial marriage. This decision ushered in a transformative moment in American history. As we approach the first anniversary of another landmark Supreme Court decision in the Windsor case, we should remember the foundational work that was laid when the Supreme Court came together nearly 50 years ago to uphold the civil rights of all Americans to marry the person they love.

In writing for the majority in Loving, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared ``the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.'' My wife Marcelle and I had been married just 5 years at the time, and on that June day, we were overwhelmed with pride and joy for the many couples affected by this historic decision. Now married for over 50 years, I cannot bear to imagine a world where I would have been prohibited from marrying the person I love because of something beyond my control.

As I reflect on the landmark Loving decision, I am filled with pride for my home State. Throughout history, Vermont has taken a leadership role in America's journey to build a more just society. Vermont was the first State in the Union to outlaw slavery, and Vermonters offered shelter to runaway slaves seeking refuge while in transit to Canada-- serving as one of the last stops on the Underground Railroad. Vermont was also the first to adopt universal manhood suffrage, regardless of property ownership.

It is because of this history that it is not surprising that Vermont has been at the forefront of our Nation's march toward marriage equality: Vermont was the first State to provide civil unions back in 2000, and on April 7, 2009, Vermont once again led the Nation by granting marriage equality for the first time through democratically elected officials on a bipartisan basis instead of through the courts.

This is not to say that it was easy. The initial move toward civil unions fomented heated debate among Vermonters and throughout the Nation. But several courageous leaders, such as the late Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont Bob Stafford, showed us the way, and their advocacy for equality was powerfully moving. Like many Vermonters, I listened to advocates, friends, and neighbors who reminded me that love and commitment are values to encourage and not to fear. I continue to be inspired by the inclusive example set by Vermont.

Five years ago Vermont's State Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act, which provided marriage equality for all Vermonters. Since then, more than 3,700 same-sex couples have married in the State of Vermont, 19 States and the District of Columbia have marriage equality, and the Supreme Court has decided a landmark case on the issue of same-sex marriage.

One year ago this month, the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of Federal law as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman.'' The Court concluded that the law deprived couples of equal liberty as protected by our fifth amendment. All Americans deserve equal justice under the law, and Marcelle and I celebrated this important decision, which honored the Loving decision and pushed the Nation farther on its path toward equality.

In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred Loving reflected on her life and weighed in on the issue of marriage equality. She said:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and

grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of

Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it

meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious

to me, even if others thought he was the `wrong kind of

person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter

their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual

orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Government has no business imposing some people's religious

beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil

rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that

Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help

reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the

family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay

or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for

all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have made civil rights a priority of our Committee's agenda and a priority in the Senate. I often hear from those who think that the struggle for civil rights is over--that this issue is one for the history books. If only that were true. If only every American could marry the love of their life and have that union recognized. If only hate groups stopped targeting communities based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, or national origin. If only racial discrimination in voting was a thing of the past, but it is not. We must keep up the fight on our path toward a more perfect union.

This month we celebrate and honor the real love behind both the Loving and Windsor decisions. Their fight to be with the one they loved spans decades, but their lessons stand the test of time. They are the kinds of Supreme Court rulings that future generations will point to when they consider the Supreme Court's most notable decisions. The march toward equality must and will continue until all individuals-- regardless of sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability--are protected and respected, equally, under our laws.

Madam President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote to proceed to a bill that I am proud to cosponsor, to allow students to refinance their student loans at lower interest rates. We must take this commonsense approach to allow those with student loans to take advantage of historically low interest rates.

It should go without saying that student loan costs should not rise so high that students cannot repay. Yet in recent years, average college tuition rates have climbed faster than inflation, far outpacing student financial aid. Since 1985, the cost of attending college has risen by 559 percent, and last school year alone, instate tuition and fees at public 4-year institutions were on average 8.3 percent higher than in the previous year.

Debt caused by student loans has surpassed the level of credit card debt in the United States. In Vermont, there are 99,000 people with Federal student loans representing more than $2 billion in debt. This not only affects those borrowers and their families, but it has a devastating effect on the economy as a whole--particularly in the housing market. Student loan debt is preventing many would-be first- time home buyers from saving enough to afford a down payment. High student loan debt, combined with the housing lending climate, has left many unable to secure a mortgage. Experts are worried that the high level of student loan debt is one of the reasons the housing market has been slow to recover.

This bill would help those suffering with the burden of student loan debt by offering them the opportunity to refinance at lower interest rates. We offer refinancing options to businesses, homeowners, and even local governments. These options should be available to students, too. The legislation would help roughly 25 million borrowers keep up with their student loan payments by allowing them to refinance at the same rates that new borrowers receive. Combined with the Executive action announced this week by President Obama to give more students the ability to cap monthly payments, this bill is an important step toward relieving the student debt burden so many Americans face.

I regularly hear from Vermonters about their struggles to afford a college education, and their concerns about student loan debt after they graduate. Many students are forced to take on significant debt, and too often are not able to complete college because of soaring costs. For those students who do go on to graduate, record student loan debt has made getting ahead in today's job market an insurmountable challenge for some students. Students who might otherwise choose to work in the public sector or other historically lower paying jobs like primary health care or teaching professions must make professional choices based solely on their level of debt. Unfortunately, along with the pressure from student loan debt has come an increase in default rates among borrowers, which will affect a student's financial stability for decades.

I have always firmly believed in the importance of a college education. I was the first Leahy in my family to graduate from college. Every young person should have the chance to pursue higher education. Education is a path out of poverty, a road to personal growth, and an access ramp to professional accomplishment and economic security. Everyone wins when access to education expands.

Each opportunity for a young American to earn a college education is also an opportunity for the Nation's future. Our country's ability to compete in the global marketplace in the future depends on our children's ability to finance their education. This does not need to be a partisan issue and should be one where we can find widespread agreement.

I urge every Senator to help us move ahead to support our students, their futures, and our country's future. This issue deserves to be debated in the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, when Vermonters contemplate the history of our great State, many think fondly of our former State archivist, Gregory Sanford. With his flowing gray beard and quick wit, Gregory is a noted scholar on all things relating to Vermont's history and culture. Gregory retired from his post as the Vermont State archivist in 2012. The appreciation of the extent of Gregory's intellect and influence is not limited to Vermonters. His impressive career was recently chronicled in Archival Outlook, a publication of the Society of American Archivists.

Throughout his career, Gregory Sanford served as a critical resource for journalists, legislators, town moderators, and anyone else searching to put today's events into historical context. He brought excitement to the daunting but essential task of preserving State records. It was his vision, passion, and ability to anticipate the myriad of ways that technology would alter the job of State archivist that set Gregory Sanford apart. As the Archival Outlook piece notes, Gregory spent his career imagining innovative solutions to difficult problems with limited resources.

During his years as State archivist, Gregory was also an ambitious author who worked to explain how our laws affect the lives of everyday Vermonters, often invoking colorful analogies to do so. His regular column, ``Voices from the Vault,'' never lacked for detail or readership. In short, Gregory brought history to life, and worked tirelessly to preserve it, which is precisely why this profile of Gregory Sanford is entitled, ``The Sense of Wonder.'' My State of Vermont is so fortunate for his many contributions, and I ask unanimous consent that the Archival Outlook article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over- the-air. 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 are currently receiving.

The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most popular.

Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. That license has had an important impact on competition in the video market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to consumers.

The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current system that governs the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come December 31.

Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license.

I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years.

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

Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over- the-air. 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 are currently receiving.

The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most popular.

Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. That license has had an important impact on competition in the video market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and prevent serious disruption to consumers.

The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current system that governs the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come December 31.

Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license.

I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years.

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

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of three nominees to serve on the U.S. district courts in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported two of these nominees unanimously to the full Senate, and the third nominee with strong bipartisan support.

These nominees are not controversial and in past years would have been confirmed weeks, or even months, ago. Instead, Republicans continue to refuse to give consent for votes on any judicial nominee, irrespective of their qualifications or the support of home State Senators. As a result, yesterday the Senate was forced again to waste valuable time voting to end the unnecessary filibusters of three highly qualified nominees. The Senate has now voted to end the filibusters of 44 judicial nominees so far during 2014. It is every Senator's right to demand continued debate on any measure or nomination before this chamber. But I would say to any Senator who requires a cloture vote on a qualified, consensus nominee to at least speak about the nominee and not to obstruct for obstruction's sake.

I hope that this partisan fever will break in the near future, and that Republicans will stop reducing the Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent into a tool of obstruction. These delays should stop.

Mark Mastroianni has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He has served since 2011 as district attorney in the Hampden district attorney's office and previously worked in private practice. Following law school, he served as an assistant district attorney in the Hampden District Attorney's Office from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Mastroianni has the support of his home State senators, Senator Warren and Senator Markey. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 6, 2014.

Judge Bruce Hendricks has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. She has served since 2002 as a U.S. magistrate judge for the

District of South Carolina. During her judicial service, she presided over thousands of criminal and civil cases. She served as an adjunct professor at the College of Charleston from 2000 to 2001, teaching classes on the structure of the Federal and State court system and civil processes and procedures. She previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of South Carolina from 1991 to 2002. Judge Hendricks' nomination received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``unanimously well qualified.'' She has the support of her home State Republican senators, Senator Graham and Senator Scott. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate by roll call vote of 16-2 on March 6, 2014.

Tanya Chutkan has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Tanya Chutkan has worked in private practice as a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, where she has served as a partner since 2007 and as a counsel from 2002 to 2006. She previously served as an attorney at The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia from 1991 to 2002. She worked in private practice as an associate at Donovan, Leisure, Rogovin, Huge & Schiller from 1990 to 1991 and at Hogan & Hartson LLP from 1987 to 1990. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 27, 2014.

In addition to the nominees we will vote on today, there are 10 additional judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, including seven nominees who were reported unanimously. Six of the 10 judicial nominees that will be left pending after today's confirmation votes will fill judicial emergency vacancies in the District of Nevada, the Southern District of Illinois, and in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida. I hope that the Senate moves quickly to confirm these nominees, and others.

Mr. President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, following the resignation of Secretary Shinseki last week, it is time for some deep soul-searching about the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As details slowly emerge from the inspector general's investigation, I am struck by a disturbing aspect of organizational culture within the VA that prioritizes meeting goals and checking boxes instead of providing true quality care for veterans. Secretary Shinseki himself was a decorated veteran, and I am sure he must have been as frustrated as all of us to find some of the things that were happening.

There is an overwhelming current rushing toward the path of least resistance for ``reporting'' care for the men and women who served this Nation admirably and with dedication. But we should not lose sight of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the VA system every day striving to provide effective and timely care to veterans. We have to tell ourselves that there is really no shortcut to quality care for veterans. The VA has rightly been under intense pressure and scrutiny to live up to the promise we made to veterans when they agreed to serve.

We have many people in this body and the other body who voted for a war that I think historians will call a disaster--the war in Iraq. For the first time in America's history, they voted for a war and did not do anything to pay for it--no tax to pay for it or anything else. Ten years later, though, they say: We have to watch the cost of VA health care and all that; we have to find the money. Well, that did not bother them when they sent these men and women to war. Let's take care of them now.

It has become apparent that at facilities across the United States some VA employees have decided to choose to simply tell those above them and those of us with oversight responsibility what they want to hear, over providing quality care in a timely fashion. And that is appalling and unacceptable.

But most VA employees are tireless servants. Many are veterans themselves. For those men and women who give their all for our veterans, it is becoming evident that the system of incentives and disincentives may have worked against them. For example, it appears that the criteria for bonuses are too weighted towards reported metrics, rather than toward taking the time to understand the outcomes behind the statistics. What sort of message is sent to good employees when their ``success'' depends only on a small part of the picture of veterans' care?

There should be no shortcut to quality care for veterans in Washington policymaking circles either. The mere replacement of a cabinet secretary results in neither accountability nor reform. Even widespread firing of SES-level government employees will not automatically result in providing quality care for veterans. Other meaningful and more comprehensive reforms are needed, and without delay. Earlier this year my distinguished colleague from Vermont Senator Sanders introduced an expansive collection of many needed reforms. Unfortunately, like so many bills we have tried to consider this year, partisan objections stalled progress based on procedural rather than substantive matters. Some of the same people who have been so critical of this administration and the VA were the same ones who voted to block going forward with needed reforms.

Well, the Senate is going to get another opportunity to consider a comprehensive collection of reforms. It must prompt some meaningful bipartisan action here in the Senate. Let's not play ``gotcha.'' Let's play ``help you'' to the veterans. That is what we need to do. Congress has an obligation to consider, debate, and vote on the reforms needed to make our system of care for veterans both efficient and effective.

My wife began her nursing career as a brand new registered nurse in a VA hospital. I know how hard she and those around her worked. They were veterans of a different generation, but they needed help and care just as much as everybody else.

So I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the legislation introduced yesterday by Senator Sanders. I am proud to cosponsor it. Many reforms are needed within the VA, and the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act takes important steps toward achieving these changes.

Of course, additional reforms are needed. So today I am introducing legislation to address one shortfall at the VA that has existed far too long. Current law provides a disincentive to cost-effective, onsite medical care solutions when operating rooms are refurbished or rebuilt within a VA hospital or care facility. Because the VA must report any major medical facility costs exceeding $10 million to Congress, the VA is encouraged to pay for veterans care at outside facilities, including travel to and from those facilities, out of the medical services account. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a different pot of money. So that way they do not have to have an extensive report. But the best solution for veterans and the bottom line may very well be a temporary onsite facility.

The bill is simple but attempts to take the allure of a shortcut away by ensuring that the expenses of temporary offsite care are also calculated and reported.

Senator Sanders, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has said: ``If you think it's too expensive to take care of our veterans, then don't send them to war.'' He is right. We paid for two unfunded wars on a credit card. Now it is time we invest in those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our security. It is time for us to worry about some of the things we need to do here at home. It is time.

Mr. President, following the resignation of Secretary Shinseki last week, it is time for some deep soul-searching about the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As details slowly emerge from the inspector general's investigation, I am struck by a disturbing aspect of organizational culture within the VA that prioritizes meeting goals and checking boxes instead of providing true quality care for veterans. Secretary Shinseki himself was a decorated veteran, and I am sure he must have been as frustrated as all of us to find some of the things that were happening.

There is an overwhelming current rushing toward the path of least resistance for ``reporting'' care for the men and women who served this Nation admirably and with dedication. But we should not lose sight of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the VA system every day striving to provide effective and timely care to veterans. We have to tell ourselves that there is really no shortcut to quality care for veterans. The VA has rightly been under intense pressure and scrutiny to live up to the promise we made to veterans when they agreed to serve.

We have many people in this body and the other body who voted for a war that I think historians will call a disaster--the war in Iraq. For the first time in America's history, they voted for a war and did not do anything to pay for it--no tax to pay for it or anything else. Ten years later, though, they say: We have to watch the cost of VA health care and all that; we have to find the money. Well, that did not bother them when they sent these men and women to war. Let's take care of them now.

It has become apparent that at facilities across the United States some VA employees have decided to choose to simply tell those above them and those of us with oversight responsibility what they want to hear, over providing quality care in a timely fashion. And that is appalling and unacceptable.

But most VA employees are tireless servants. Many are veterans themselves. For those men and women who give their all for our veterans, it is becoming evident that the system of incentives and disincentives may have worked against them. For example, it appears that the criteria for bonuses are too weighted towards reported metrics, rather than toward taking the time to understand the outcomes behind the statistics. What sort of message is sent to good employees when their ``success'' depends only on a small part of the picture of veterans' care?

There should be no shortcut to quality care for veterans in Washington policymaking circles either. The mere replacement of a cabinet secretary results in neither accountability nor reform. Even widespread firing of SES-level government employees will not automatically result in providing quality care for veterans. Other meaningful and more comprehensive reforms are needed, and without delay. Earlier this year my distinguished colleague from Vermont Senator Sanders introduced an expansive collection of many needed reforms. Unfortunately, like so many bills we have tried to consider this year, partisan objections stalled progress based on procedural rather than substantive matters. Some of the same people who have been so critical of this administration and the VA were the same ones who voted to block going forward with needed reforms.

Well, the Senate is going to get another opportunity to consider a comprehensive collection of reforms. It must prompt some meaningful bipartisan action here in the Senate. Let's not play ``gotcha.'' Let's play ``help you'' to the veterans. That is what we need to do. Congress has an obligation to consider, debate, and vote on the reforms needed to make our system of care for veterans both efficient and effective.

My wife began her nursing career as a brand new registered nurse in a VA hospital. I know how hard she and those around her worked. They were veterans of a different generation, but they needed help and care just as much as everybody else.

So I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the legislation introduced yesterday by Senator Sanders. I am proud to cosponsor it. Many reforms are needed within the VA, and the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act takes important steps toward achieving these changes.

Of course, additional reforms are needed. So today I am introducing legislation to address one shortfall at the VA that has existed far too long. Current law provides a disincentive to cost-effective, onsite medical care solutions when operating rooms are refurbished or rebuilt within a VA hospital or care facility. Because the VA must report any major medical facility costs exceeding $10 million to Congress, the VA is encouraged to pay for veterans care at outside facilities, including travel to and from those facilities, out of the medical services account. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a different pot of money. So that way they do not have to have an extensive report. But the best solution for veterans and the bottom line may very well be a temporary onsite facility.

The bill is simple but attempts to take the allure of a shortcut away by ensuring that the expenses of temporary offsite care are also calculated and reported.

Senator Sanders, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has said: ``If you think it's too expensive to take care of our veterans, then don't send them to war.'' He is right. We paid for two unfunded wars on a credit card. Now it is time we invest in those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our security. It is time for us to worry about some of the things we need to do here at home. It is time.

Madam President, what is the regular order?

Has that time expired?