Floor Statements

Madam President, it is no secret that communities across the country are struggling to break the cycle of addiction to powerful opioids, including heroin. We are now seeing addiction creep into neighborhoods and communities of all sizes, both rural and urban. My home State of Vermont has not been spared, and it in fact has attracted much attention for its struggles with addiction. However in many ways, Vermont is ahead of much of the Nation when it comes to responding to the opioid epidemic. We long ago recognized the problem, and communities in Vermont have spent the better part of a decade coming together to address opioid addiction.

In March I had the privilege of chairing a field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Rutland, VT. It was the fourth time in the past 6 years that I brought the committee to Vermont to explore issues related to drug abuse. I heard powerful testimony discussing how communities are responding to addiction, rethinking decades-old approaches to prevention, treatment, and law enforcement efforts. Dr. Harry Chen, the Vermont Department of Health commissioner and a career emergency room physician, described what it means to recognize

addiction as a public health issue, expanding evidence-based prevention and treatment services to all corners of the State.

Vermont hospitals are also rethinking best practices in light of this epidemic. Recently, the Office of National Drug Control Policy published an article entitled ``How a Vermont Hospital Fights the American Opioid Epidemic.'' The article was authored by Dr. Stephen Leffler, the chief medical officer at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington, VT. In the article, Dr. Leffler describes how Fletcher Allen is on the leading edge of modernizing health care practices to minimize abuse and addiction, while still providing necessary pain management. The hospital provides clear, standardized protocols for treating pain, defines a maximum daily dosage as guided by the latest research, and measures patients' risk for addiction. This approach ensures consistency in treatment and may help to stem the flow of prescription opioid users from sliding into addiction.

The approach described in Dr. Leffler's article could potentially serve as a model for the rest of country, and I would encourage other States grappling with addiction to look at what Fletcher Allen is doing in Burlington. If we are to find legislative solutions that may finally break the cycle of opioid addiction, then surely we must carefully consider promising, novel approaches such as this. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Leffler's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, later today we are going to vote on the confirmation of David Barron, who has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Yesterday, we were able to overcome the unjustified Republican filibuster of this extraordinary nominee. Now, I have had the privilege of serving longer in this body than any other Senator here. I have never seen so many filibusters of judicial nominees by any President, Republican or Democratic. In fact, Republicans filibustered the very first judge President Obama sent to this body, a judge who was strongly supported by the Senators from his State, one of whom was the most senior Republican in this body, the other a moderate Democrat. Fortunately, enough Senators joined together to overcome that filibuster.

David Barron is currently a professor at Harvard Law School. He is a nationally recognized expert in constitutional law and the separation of powers, administrative law, and federalism. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens. In fact, I recall that Justice Stevens had so much regard for him that he attended Mr. Barron's nomination hearing.

I am in full support of Mr. Barron's nomination. It is almost as if he was sent to central casting for who should be a court of appeals judge. I have not seen any judicial nominee with better qualifications by either a Republican or Democratic President.

Let me respond to some of the criticisms levied against him with respect to the so-called drone memos as well as allegations that he would not be an independent judge who adheres to the rule of law. I reject both of those criticisms.

Over the last few weeks, I have spoken extensively about the issue of the drone materials and would refer specifically to my statement of May 14 of this year. While Senators may disagree with the administration's policies regarding the use of drones for lethal counterterrorism operations--and I have raised concerns about some of those operations-- it is important not to conflate the confirmation of David Barron with the disclosure of Justice Department memoranda over which he had no control. He wrote an analysis of the law. Others make the decision of what they will do.

Yesterday the Justice Department made the right decision by agreeing to publicly release the redacted version of the legal justification for the government's potential use of lethal force against U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations. I welcome the administration's additional step toward greater transparency.

Incidentally, these materials have been available to all Senators in recent weeks. We have had them in the unredacted form in a secure room here in the Capitol. We did that so that nobody could claim: Well, if only I knew what was in those memos, I could make up my mind. Every single Senator has had an opportunity to read them before today's vote.

We have heard some Senators argue that the Justice Department legal analysis provides the government with a blank check to use lethal force against Americans in places such as Germany or Canada. Oh my God, talk about grasping at straws. We are dealing with reality here, not Alice in Wonderland. Such a claim is simply inaccurate, inconsistent with the understanding anybody would have reading these materials.

In any event, the Attorney General has confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaki is the only American who was specifically targeted and killed since 2009. Awlaki was a senior operational leader of all of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, located in Yemen. He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was continuing to plot attacks against the United States when he was killed, according to the Attorney General.

I am glad a number of Senators share my deep regard for the constitutional rights of Americans and have spoken about that on the floor. I hope that after Mr. Barron is confirmed, they will show they really believe what they have been saying by joining me and 21 other Senators in cosponsoring the USA FREEDOM Act to help restore America's constitutional and privacy rights.

Finally, both Mr. Barron and a long list of bipartisan supporters have forcefully refuted any indication that he views the role of a judge as that of a policymaker. In a response to a question from Senator Grassley, Mr. Barron stated the following under oath:

The judicial obligation is to set aside whatever personal

views one may have and to decide the particular case at

issue. A judge must base the decision in any case solely on

the facts and the law, while respectfully considering the

arguments of the litigants. I would take that obligation to

be an inexorable one, just as I felt obliged to set aside any

personal views I may have had in providing legal advice

within the executive branch while serving as the Acting

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

and as a career lawyer in that Office. I believe the best way

to ensure one honors that obligation is to immerse oneself

fully in the particular facts of the case and the law

relevant to it and then to apply the law faithfully to those

facts.

Mr. Barron's respect for the rule of law was recently reaffirmed by Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a well-respected conservative scholar and former George W. Bush appointee to the Tenth Circuit. In a letter dated May 7, 2014 in support of Mr. Barron's nomination, Professor McConnell stated:

I suspect that on particular controversial issues, Barron

and I disagree more often than not. But I have read much of

his academic work, and followed his performance as acting

head of the Office of Legal Counsel. In my opinion, his

writings and opinions have demonstrated not only intelligence

(even where we disagree) but respect for the rule of law. In

the Office of Legal Counsel, whose functions closely resemble

those of a judge, Barron's publicly released opinions

indicated that he was consistently a force for legal

regularity and respect for the constitution and laws of the

United States. That is an important and precious thing.

I ask unanimous consent that Professor McConnell's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

It should be clear from Mr. Barron's testimony and Professor McConnell's letter that David Barron would faithfully discharge his duty as a judge in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Senator Grassley cited yesterday to some statements made by Mr. Barron in his academic writings, but as Professor McConnell noted in his letter:

It is important to bear in mind that academic legal writing

in constitutional law is often exploratory and provocative.

No one should assume that an academic would take the same

approach toward deciding cases that he does in writing about

cases.

Professor McConnell should know, as he is a prolific academic who was similarly able to discharge his duty as a judge faithfully and consistently with the Constitution when he served on the bench. As a reminder to Republicans who are currently opposing Mr. Barron's nomination on these grounds, I will note that the Senate unanimously confirmed Professor McConnell's nomination to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration.

Mr. Barron is truly an outstanding nominee. So outstanding, in fact, that Professor McConnell called him ``one of President Obama's two or three best nominations to the appellate courts.'' I would urge all Senators to vote to confirm Mr. Barron to the First Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Saturday we celebrated the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. In that unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. The Court ``concluded that,'' in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' This landmark decision is rightly celebrated every year.

The case of Hernandez v. State of Texas, however, decided by the Supreme Court just 2 weeks before the Brown decision, is an often overlooked and yet momentous advancement of civil rights in our country. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or black, and extends to all racial groups in the United States. Fortunately, we are only left to imagine a world without the Hernandez decision, a world that would have blocked Hispanics and other racial groups from the promise of equality made in the Constitution.

Taken together, the Brown and Hernandez decisions stand as landmarks of progress in our country. We have come far in the march towards equality; yet, we must recognize that we can and must achieve more. Six decades after the Brown and Hernandez decisions, our country must continue to confront social, economic, and racial inequalities throughout this country.

Racial inequality is not an issue that our society can just wish away in the 21st century. It still exists in our criminal justice system, educational, and voting systems, and in our housing and lending markets. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a member of the Senate for nearly 40 years, I have fought to uphold the promise of equality in our fundamental charter.

The anniversary of these civil rights cases is a moment to reflect on our past, and to evaluate and commit to the next steps that we need to take as we strive to build a more perfect Union. As many families across the Nation celebrate the graduation of hard-

working students who have earned their degrees, it is important to also celebrate all who helped in the journey traveled. As former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said:

None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up

by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody--a parent, a

teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns--bent down and

helped us pick up our boots.

Let us rejoice as a nation that in 60 years we have made great strides. We must not forget that the promise of our founding charter is aspirational, and we are all made better by the fight to bring greater liberty and equality to the Nation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud to come to the Senate floor today to celebrate the passage of a resolution commemorating and

honoring the dedication and sacrifice of law enforcement officers who have been killed or injured in the line of duty. I urge other Senators to show their support for the men and women who work tirelessly to protect our communities.

This week is National Police Week, a time when thousands of law enforcement officers come to our Nation's Capital, and we pause to honor the sacrifices of our men and women in law enforcement. On Tuesday night the names of 286 officers killed in the line of duty were added to the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, 101 of whom were lost in 2013. The memorial now contains the names of over 20,000 fallen officers.

This resolution pays tribute to those who have fallen, recognizing May 15, 2014, as ``National Peace Officers Memorial Day'' and calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with solemnity, appreciation, and respect. Earlier today, Senator Grassley and I attended the 33rd Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial service here on the West Front of the Capitol. The event was a somber reminder of the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make every day. We have a responsibility to support them in the critical work they do.

I also urge the Senate to come together to honor law enforcement officers by supporting the passage of both S.933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, and S. 357, the National Blue Alert Act. These bills are unanimously and strongly supported by law enforcement and passing these bills would provide tangible, life-saving assistance to those who serve on the front lines, protecting our communities.

I thank Senators Grassley, Shaheen, Wicker, Markey, Begich, Udall of New Mexico, Hagan, Coons, Durbin, Franken, Booker, Landrieu, Reed, Blumenthal, Schatz, Heitkamp, Feinstein, Udall of Colorado, Wicker, Pryor, Hirono, Cardin, Cochran, Warner, Mikulski, Warren, Schumer, Murray, Whitehouse, Donnelly, Heinrich, and Klobuchar for their cosponsorship of this resolution and their support for law enforcement. I am very glad to see this resolution pass.

Madam President, this week, we are voting to overcome Republican filibusters of seven highly qualified judicial nominees. Every single one of the nominees we will be voting on this week has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. This means that the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has designated them as emergency vacancies due to high caseloads. We continue to seek consent from Republicans to vote on much needed judges to our Federal judiciary, and yet they continue to refuse. Republicans have objected to moving to a vote on every single judicial nominee this year. I can only hope that they will eventually come to see the error of their ways.

Before proceeding with the qualifications of these judicial nominees, I would again like to clarify and address some questions regarding the nomination of David Barron. Mr. Barron has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. There have been press accounts that have inaccurately stated what the administration has made available for Senators to review relevant to this nomination. As I said last week, the administration has made available unredacted copies of any memo issued by Mr. Barron regarding the potential use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Awlaki. This week, the administration has made clear that this material included all written legal advice by Mr. Barron regarding potential use of lethal force against U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations. Senators therefore have had the opportunity to conduct their due diligence before voting on this nomination.

In an Internet post titled ``Why Civil Libertarians and Drone Critics Should Support David Barron,'' Georgetown Law Professor David Cole--one of the foremost critics of the administration over its failure to publicly disclose legal material addressing the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens--has stated:

It is a mistake to conflate the issues of the appointment

of David Barron and disclosure of the memos. Barron is a

highly qualified lawyer who I know personally to be

thoughtful, considerate, open-minded, and brilliant. His

confirmation would put in place a judge who will be

absolutely vigilant in his protection of civil liberties and

his insistence that executive power be constrained by the

rule of law. That long-term value should not be sacrificed

because of a short-term battle over memos that every Senator

already has the opportunity to review.

Professor Cole is right. I have personally pressed the administration for greater transparency on these matters as well, but that is a separate debate and we should not be waging it at the expense of harming our Federal judiciary and denying the American people an individual who will make a first-rate judge. Not only is this tactic unwise, but it also does not help advance the cause of those who are seeking public disclosure of the memos. As Professor Cole has further explained:

[H]olding up Barron's nomination is unlikely to expedite

disclosure of the memos. It will only undermine the

confirmation of someone who would make an excellent judge.

The Administration has been ordered (unanimously) to release

the memo, and will in short order either comply with that

order or seek further review. Barron has no control over that

decision, and should not be held hostage to it . . .

I am second to none in my support for transparency. And I

will continue to fight for that value on its own terms. But

it is a huge mistake to let our legitimate concerns about

transparency get in the way of the confirmation of a judge

who will faithfully protect our liberties and hold government

accountable--especially when the Senate already has been

given access to all the information they need to exercise

their ``advise and consent'' role.

I agree completely with Professor Cole, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full posting after my remarks.

I would further ask unanimous consent to include a joint op-ed in the Boston Globe by Harvard Law professors Charles Fried and Laurence Tribe--two legal luminaries who often disagree in their views on the Constitution and other legal issues. As the two of them have written:

The nation badly needs the best possible judges--men and

women of integrity, intelligence, judicial temperament,

respect for the rule of law, and an understanding of the role

of judges within our legal system. Barron understands and

exemplifies those values. He should be released from the

destructive tangle in which he has become quite undeservedly

enmeshed and placed on the First Circuit Court of Appeals

where he can serve our nation with great distinction.

We should proceed to Mr. Barron's nomination and confirm him so he can get to work on behalf of the American people. Delays are simply depriving the Federal judiciary and all Americans of a tremendous public servant.

This week, we will proceed to vote to end filibusters on the following seven nominations:

Judge Gregg Costa has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas. He has served since 2012 as a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of Texas. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Texas from 2005 to 2012. He worked in private practice as an associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges from 2002 to 2005. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit from 1999 to 2000 and to Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2001 to 2002. He also served as a Bristow fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General from 2000 to 2001. Judge Costa earned his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1994. He earned his J.D. with the highest honors from the University of Texas Law School in 1999. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on March 27, 2014.

Judge Steven Logan has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served on the Military Court of Appeals since 2013 and as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of Arizona since 2012. He also served as a Staff Judge Advocate in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves from 2012 to 2013. Previously, from 2010 to 2012, he served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. From 2009 to 2011, he served as an Article I Deputy Chief Reserve Military Judge, and from 2005 to 2009, he served as an Article I Military Judge to the U.S. Department of the Navy. Prior to becoming judge, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Arizona from 2001 to 2010 and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Minnesota from 1999 to 2001. From 1993 to 1999, he worked for the Department of Defense, where he served as a Prosecutor--1996-1999--and as a contracting officer--1993-1996. Judge Logan has completed three deployments of Active Duty in Afghanistan--2008-2009--and Iraq--2004, 2007-2008. During his military service, he received numerous awards that include the Bronze Star in 2008, the Meritorious Service Medal in 2004 and 2012, and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal in 2004. Judge Logan has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 27, 2014.

John Tuchi has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2012 as the chief assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona, where he also has served as the U.S. attorney for an interim period in 2009 and as an assistant U.S. attorney since 1998. From 2001 to 2007, he served as an adjunct professor at the Arizona State University Law School, teaching courses on professional responsibility. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Tuchi worked in private practice at Brown & Bain, P.A. as an associate. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge William C. Canby, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 1995. In 2010, he received the Director's Award for Outstanding Performance in Indian Country from the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Tuchi has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on February 27, 2014.

Diane Humetewa has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She has served as a professor of practice and special advisor to the president at the Arizona State University Law School since 2011. From 2009 to 2011, she worked in private practice as a counsel at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. From 1998 to 2009, she served in the U.S. attorney's Office in the District of Arizona as an assistant U.S. attorney--1998-2007--and then as the U.S. attorney from 2007 to 2009. From 2005 to 2006, she served as a detailee with the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Ms. Humetewa also served as an appellate court judge for the Hopi Tribe from 2002 to 2007. Prior to her service in Arizona, she served as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1996 to 1998. After graduating from law school, she served as Deputy Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs from 1993 to 1996. She has the support of her Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on February 27, 2014. When confirmed, Ms. Humetewa will be the first Native American woman to serve as a Federal judge and the third Native American ever to do so.

Rosemary Morquez has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She has served since 2008 in private practice as a sole practitioner in Tucson, AZ. She previously served as a partner at Montoya & Morquez, PLLC from 2000 to 2008, an assistant Federal public defender in the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tucson, AZ from 1996 to 2000, a county legal defender in the Pima County Legal Defender's Office from 1994 to 1996, and a deputy county attorney in the Pima County Attorney's Office in 1994. Ms. Morquez earned her B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1990. She earned her J.D. from the University of Arizona Law School in 1993. She has the support of her Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by a roll call vote of 15 to 2 on February 27, 2014.

Judge Douglas Rayes has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2000 as an Arizona State judge in Maricopa County Superior Court, including as associate presiding civil judge from 2008 to 2010 and as presiding criminal judge from 2010 to 2013. He has presided over thousands of complex criminal, civil, and family cases that have gone to judgment by settlement, plea agreement, summary judgment, or dismissal. He previously worked in private practice as a partner at Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 1989 to 2000; a partner at McGroder, Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 1986 to 1989; McGroder, Tryon, Heller, Rayes & Berch from 1984 to 1986; and as an associate at McGroder, Pearlstein, Peppler & Tryon from 1982 to 1984. Following his graduation from law school, he served as Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army JAG Corps from 1979 to 1982. He served in the U.S. Army from 1970 to 1982 and in the Army Reserve from 1982 to 1985. Judge Rayes has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him

favorably to the full Senate by a roll call vote of 16-2 on February 27, 2014.

Judge James Soto has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served since 2001 as a superior court judge in the Santa Cruz County Court. During his time on the bench, he has presided over 1,100 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to his judicial service, he worked in private practice for over two decades, including as a shareholder and president of Soto, Martin and Coogan, P.C. from 1992 to 2001. He worked as a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1979. He previously served as town attorney for the town of Patagonia from 1975 to 1992, deputy city attorney for the Office of the Nogales City Attorney from 1974 to 1983, and deputy county attorney for Santa Cruz County in 1975. Judge Soto has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senator McCain and Senator Flake. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 27, 2014.

All of these nominees have the experience, judgment, and legal acumen to be terrific judges in our Federal courts. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions, and I hope all Senators will join me to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

I yield back all time.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maryland who, just as he did when he was in the State legislature and has done every single day since he has been in the Senate, has been supportive of law enforcement and police officers. I am sorry there was an objection.

I spoke earlier to my dear friend, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin. I told him that earlier today I chaired a hearing on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. The distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Delaware, was there, as were law enforcement officers from Delaware.

During that hearing we heard from Officer Ann Carrizales of the Stafford, TX, police department. This was some of the most powerful testimony I have heard in my almost 40 years on that committee.

She was shot in the face and chest during a routine traffic stop last year. She was saved by her protective vest. She returned fire and then pursued the suspects for 20 miles and ultimately helped a neighboring police jurisdiction apprehend the shooter--a determined police officer, former Marine, mother, and wife.

We also heard from a police chief who will be staying here with law enforcement during National Police Week. We talked about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, which Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell--who served in law enforcement, a Republican from Colorado--and I first introduced, and for decades it has been passed unanimously. It saves lives. It is not a luxury item.

Last week, I came to the Senate floor, seeking to do what this body has done 3 times before, and that is to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. My legislation to renew this life- saving program for another 5 years has the support of every Democrat in the Senate. It is strongly supported by leading law enforcement groups, and on a much more personal note, we know that vests provided by this program have protected thousands of officers and spared their families and loved ones from unspeakable grief.

Officers like Officer Ann Carrizales. If her story does not inspire us all to support brave law enforcement officers by providing them with the most basic protection, then I do not know what could. She brought with her today almost 200 letters from her daughter's elementary school, all calling on the Senate to act. One of the letters I have is from her daughter MiKayla, talking about what her mother faced. This was powerful testimony.

Unfortunately, my efforts to pass this important reauthorization were blocked last week by a Republican Senator who seems to think that bulletproof vests are a luxury item. Some Republican Senators also believe that the Federal Government has no role to play in assisting local law enforcement. I could not disagree more. We in Congress have long supported local law enforcement because we have a duty to keep our communities safe.

Today, during National Police Week, Senators who say they stand with law enforcement should demonstrate their support and put real meaning behind those words by supporting two important bills. All Senators should support the passage of S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. To date, this program has enabled over 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests. It we act today, this program could help provide more vests to the law enforcement officers who protect us every day. We should also pass the National Blue Alert Act, a bill sponsored by Senators Cardin and Graham that would create a national alert system when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. We can put real meaning behind our rhetoric. These are commonsense bills and they should be enacted without further delay.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am sorry for that because we will waste more money in 1 or 2 weeks in Afghanistan and Iraq, than this would cost for years--years--to protect American law enforcement, police officers who protect us every day.

We ought to allow this matter to come to a vote and have everybody vote yes or no. The Senator from Vermont would vote yes. I know the Senator from Maryland would vote yes, and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer from Delaware would vote yes, as would every single Democratic Senator, and I believe a number of Republicans would.

We will give great speeches this week saying we stand with law enforcement. Well, as some say, put up or shut up. Let's stand with them. Let's pass this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the next two nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning: Stakeholder Views.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 2:15 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Charting a Path Forward for the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards Programs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wildfires and Forest Management: Prevention is Preservation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program: Supporting Law Enforcement Officers When it Matters Most.'' The witness list is attached.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Collection, Analysis and Use of Elections Data: A Measured Approach to Improving Election Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Role of Mitigation in Reducing Federal Expenditures for Disaster Response.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today, the ranking member requested that the administration provide materials relating to Anwar Al-Awlaki so that all Senators would be able to properly evaluate Mr. Barron's nomination. The administration has now made available unredacted copies of any memo issued by Mr. Barron regarding the potential use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Awlaki. I hope and expect that all Senators will review these materials today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, we are again voting to overcome Republican filibusters of four highly qualified judicial nominees. The nominees are Judge Robin Rosenbaum to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Indira Talwani to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; James Peterson to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin; and Nancy Rosenstengel to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Before proceeding with the qualifications of these four judicial nominees, I would like to address some questions regarding the nomination of David Barron. Mr. Barron has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. There have been press accounts that Senate Republicans are placing a hold on Mr. Barron's nomination because they are seeking access to a Justice Department memorandum regarding Anwar Al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

Since Senate Republicans have blocked every single judicial nominee this year from receiving an up-or-down vote, it comes as no surprise that they would attempt to block Mr. Barron as well. This is nothing new. As for the Justice Department memo, the majority leader and I have urged the administration to make the memo available to all Senators, and the administration has agreed. All Senators can review it for themselves. All members of the Judiciary Committee were previously able to review this memo, and now that his nomination is before the full Senate, it makes sense that all Senators will have that opportunity.

I am confident that once we proceed with Mr. Barron's nomination, Senators will vote to confirm him. He is brilliant nominee who is currently a professor at Harvard Law School. He is a nationally recognized expert on constitutional law, the separation of powers, administrative law, and federalism. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens has such high regard for Mr. Barron that the Justice attended his nomination hearing.

Mr. Barron has been an outstanding law professor and public servant. He has the credentials, expertise, and temperament to make an outstanding judge. As the acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel in the beginning of the Obama administration, one of Mr. Barron's first actions was to withdraw several of the torture memos that OLC issued during the Bush administration that found ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' lawful, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, and waterboarding.

Mr. Barron has stood up for the rights of gay and lesbian students. In 2005, he coauthored amici briefs in the case Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which challenged the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment provided that if an institution of higher education denies military recruiters or ROTC programs access to campus, the entire institution would lose certain Federal funds. Until 2011, the Department of Defense discriminated based on sexual orientation, and many universities did not permit discrimination on campus. In response to a question for the record from Senator Grassley on the issue, Mr. Barron said: ``With respect to my participation along with other faculty members and my dean as amici in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, I believed it was important as a faculty member at Harvard Law School to help in the effort to ensure that gay and lesbian students at my institution continued to have equal opportunities to seek legal employment.''

Mr. Barron is truly an outstanding nominee, and I hope all Senators will support his nomination when it comes up.

Today, we will vote to end the filibusters of four other very highly qualified nominees.

Judge Robin Rosenbaum has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She has served since 2012 as a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of Florida, where she was previously a U.S. magistrate judge. Prior to her judicial service, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 1998 to 2007. Judge Rosenbaum has previously practiced at Holland & Knight, LLP, and as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division. In 1998, she served as a law clerk to Judge Stanley Marcus of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She has the bipartisan support of her home state senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on March 6, 2014.

Indira Talwani has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She has worked in private practice at Segal Roitman, LLP, since 1999 and has been a partner at the firm since 2003. She has previously practiced at the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, where she was also a partner. After graduating from law school, Ms. Talwani served as law clerk to Judge Stanley Weigel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She has the support of her home State senators, Senator Warren and Senator Markey. The Judiciary Committee reported her favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 6, 2014.

James Peterson has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. He has worked in private practice at Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., since 1999, where he has been a shareholder since 2007. Mr. Peterson has served as lead counsel on at least 15 civil cases that have been litigated to judgment. He has also actively participated in nine jury trials, three of which he was lead counsel. Mr. Peterson has briefed and argued civil appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He has also authored two amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to his legal practice, Mr. Peterson has served as an adjunct instructor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Peterson ``well qualified'' to serve on the Western District of Wisconsin Court, its highest rating. He has the bipartisan support of his home State senators, Senator Johnson and Senator Baldwin. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably to the full Senate by voice vote on February 6, 2014.

Nancy Rosenstengel has been nominated to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She has served since 2009 as the clerk of court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. She previously served for 11 years as a career law clerk to Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Illinois. As a career law clerk, she assisted Judge Murphy in hundreds of civil and criminal cases. She also worked in private practice at Sandberg, Phoenix, & von Gontard as an associate from 1993 to 1998. She earned her B.A. cum laude from the University of Illinois in 1990. She earned her J.D. with honors from the Southern Illinois University Law School in 1993, where she was as an editor on the Southern Illinois University Law Journal. She has the bipartisan support of her home State senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote to the full Senate on March 6, 2014.

Each of these nominees has the experience, judgment, and legal acumen to be good judges in our Federal courts. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions, and I hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, yesterday Senator Graham and I introduced a bill to establish a National Commission on the Future of the Army, an independent panel that will bear the responsibility of analyzing some major changes to the U.S. Army that were proposed in the President's budget. The Army's budget for Fiscal Year 2015 sets a path toward major, irreversible changes to Army capacity and capability, particularly in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves, that cannot be ignored by the Congress.

Senator Graham, my fellow co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, has said repeatedly that these changes fundamentally alter what it means for the National Guard to be a combat reserve of the Army. The changes would also render the Nation's operational reserve insufficient in its ability to retain gains in experience and readiness that the reserve has achieved over a decade of continuous deployment. Most dramatically, these changes would transfer all of the National Guard's AH-64 Apaches to the active component, leaving the Nation without any combat reserves for one of the aircraft most essential to ground operations.

But the changes that the President's budget proposal would begin to make next year go much deeper. They would eventually reduce the Nation's Army National Guard to 315,000 soldiers, the fewest in decades. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, testified before the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense that this number is too low.

General Odierno said that, at that level, if any of our assumptions about future conflict were wrong--that is unless operations were short, decisive, and did not require significant sustainability--then we would not be prepared. Our Nation's defense would be ill-prepared for future conflicts in the mold of past conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea.

No one needs to be reminded of the tight fiscal constraints our government currently faces, and that sequestration, unfortunately, remains the law of the land. Simply barring any changes from taking place in America's Army is not an option. The legislation that Senator Graham and I propose will allow several of the Army's proposed cost- avoidance measures to move forward, while permitting time for a commission to study the major and truly controversial changes that have been proposed.

In addition to tasking the commission with considering overall size and force mix of the Army, this legislation calls for an evaluation of force generation assumptions. That is because the policies put into place during 13 years of war are not the same as those that will be needed post-drawdown, and determining the right modifications is essential to planning for the use and structure of the Army of the next decade.

Congress, under the authorities granted by the Constitution, has a responsibility to both raise and equip armies, and to regulate that portion of the militia which is called into Federal Service. When a budget proposal makes changes in those areas that are as considerable as these, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to hit the pause button and to ask for a second look.

We look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we properly balance and size the Army, and that we do not repeat past mistakes by needlessly discarding the depth of our forces.

Mr. President, next week we are going to commemorate National Police Week, a time when the Nation pays tribute to the sacrifices made by all those who serve in law enforcement, particularly those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. These law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities.

We often speak eloquently on both sides of the aisle here about supporting law enforcement and their families. These tributes are important. They are well deserved. But the police officers in our communities deserve more than speeches; they deserve action and real support. We owe it to all who serve to help protect those who protect us. One important, tangible way to do so is to help provide them with lifesaving bulletproof vests.

For more than 15 years the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has helped to provide bulletproof vests to law enforcement officers around the country. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell of Colorado and I worked across the aisle to design a program that helps local law enforcement agencies purchase bulletproof vests. We both had a background in law enforcement, and we drew on that. Mr. President, let me show you what has happened. Since 1987, this program has enabled over 13,000 State and local enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 million vests.

No one can dispute that this program saves lives. I will never forget a law enforcement officer who testified before our committee. He had his mother and father and his wife and children sitting behind him in the Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows how often we have witnesses speaking and their families are there.

He said: I love law enforcement. I love law enforcement. The only thing I love more than law enforcement is my family. But there came a day as an officer when I thought I would never see my family again.

It was when he stopped somebody in a routine traffic stop. The man came out of the car and shot him twice in the chest. He reached down underneath the witness table and pulled up the vest. You could see the two bullets still stuck in the vest.

He said: I got a cracked rib out of it, but I saw my mother and father and my wife and children. I saw them when I was at the hospital, where they were treating me for the cracked rib. I saw them there. They did not have to go to the morgue to see me.

That story is repeated all the time. No one disputes that this program saves lives. That is why Congress has historically acted quickly and decisively to support the bulletproof vests program. Between 2000 and 2010, the program enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. It was reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. This time around, every single Democratic Senator supports passage of the bill. It is also cosponsored by Senators Hagan, Cardin, Landrieu, Shaheen, Pryor, and Franken, to name just a few cosponsors. It has many other strong supporters of law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations.

For reasons I still do not understand, the bill is being blocked on the Republican side. Not a single Republican cosponsor has stepped forward. I cannot understand this. This has never been a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. We are doing this to protect the lives of police officers.

Senator Grassley and I developed a bipartisan reauthorization that included improvements to the program. One important change is that agencies are now given a grant preference for purchasing vests that are uniquely fitted to women officers. There are far more women as police officers today than there were even when Senator Ben Nighthorse- Campbell and I first introduced this bill.

The program is now stronger than ever. I think the vast majority of Senators want to see this program reauthorized. I do not know why Republican Senators have blocked it, especially when we are now protecting, as we had not before, women police officers too. I do not know how we can turn our backs on our police officers.

I would also urge support for the National Blue Alert Act, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee with a strong bipartisan vote. It is sponsored by Senators Cardin and Graham. I am a proud cosponsor. The bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which I coauthored with Republican Senator John Cornyn and which reauthorizes important programs such as the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program--named after a former Republican Senator--is another important bill to law enforcement that we should approve without further delay. It actually defies common sense that any Senator would object to these pieces of legislation.

Next week I will attend, as I almost always do, the National Peace Officers Memorial Service, and there will be a wreath-laying at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which now contains the names of over 20,000 fallen officers. I remember shortly after I became State's attorney going to the funeral of one of those fallen officers. I have never forgotten that--even though it was decades ago--the long line of police cars, with blue lights flashing. Snow was coming down, and the blue lights reflected off the snowflakes. The names, unfortunately, do not just stop with those over 20,000 fallen officers. The names of 286 fallen officers will be added to its walls, serving as another somber reminder of the brave men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives each and every day. They work tirelessly to keep our communities safe. They deserve our best efforts to do the same for them.

I am, in a moment, going to ask consent that the Senate pass S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. It has always been bipartisan. We should not let ideology put officers' lives at risk now. I commend the fact that every single Democratic Senator supports it and we can honor the service of those who keep us safe by protecting their lives with bulletproof vests.

Frankly, if somebody stands with law enforcement, now is the time to stand with them. I can assure you--and they will assure you--it matters here, and it matters to them.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Well, Mr. President, I am sorry to hear this. I hear people who supported a useless war in Iraq, and they will talk about how much money we spend. It was the first time in America's history----

Madam President, if the Senator will go back to what I said, it did not refer to him.

I worry about those, however, who voted for that war and did not vote to stop that war and voted for the very first time that this country has ever gone to war in its history without a tax to pay for it. We voted for it on a credit card--an unnecessary war, a war that hurt the interests of the United States, and it will eventually cost us $2 trillion. Nobody--nobody--talks about paying for that. But to protect the police officers, who are on the street every day protecting us, oh, we cannot do that. We cannot do that, even though we have done so before.

I could name the six police officers who were killed in Oklahoma. I am not going to. I am not trying to make this personal. But the Presiding Officer understands law enforcement. She supported this. Everybody on this side of the aisle supports it. It is to protect our police officers.

We will spend $2 trillion on a useless war, but we will not spend a tiny fraction of 1 percent--one one-thousandth of 1 percent--to support our men and women, especially when we now have a provision in here to protect women police officers as well as men police officers. What could be more--what could be more--nonpartisan than this? That is why Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I joined together, why Republicans and Democrats have joined together.

I am proud that every Democratic Senator is in favor of this legislation. I wish the Republicans would lift their objection. We should pass this bill. If you stand with law enforcement, then you need to stand with them when it matters most. I can assure you--and they can assure you--it matters here, and it matters now.

I yield the floor. I think I have expressed my dismay that the other side of the aisle would not stand up to protect these police officers.

Mr. President, today, we will vote to confirm Nancy Moritz to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Nancy Moritz is currently a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court, where she has been serving since 2011. She has the qualifications and has the support of her two Republican home State Senators, Mr. Pat Roberts and Mr. Jerry Moran. She was also reported from the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote this past January.

The Republicans continue to object to votes on all judicial nominations, even for completely noncontroversial nominees such as Justice Moritz. Cloture was finally invoked on Justice Moritz's nomination last week. There is no reason her nomination should have been filibustered given the bipartisan support that she has.

In fact, Justice Moritz should and could have been confirmed last year. She was first nominated last August, but her hearing was delayed until mid-November because of the Republican shutdown of the Federal Government. Senate Republicans then refused to vote on her nomination in committee at the end of last year and her nomination was returned to the President. As a result, the President had to renominate Justice Moritz and the Judiciary Committee had to reprocess her nomination this year. When we finally confirm Justice Moritz today, her nomination will have taken more than 9 months. It should not take this long to process noncontroversial nominees.

Justice Moritz has now served on the Kansas Supreme Court for nearly 4 years. Prior to joining the Kansas Supreme Court, she was an appellate judge on the Kansas Court of Appeals from 2004 to 2011. Before becoming a judge, she spent nearly 10 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Kansas City and Topeka offices. From 1989 until 1995, she was an associate at Spencer, Fane Britt & Browne, LLP in Kansas City and Overland Park. From 1987 to 1989, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patrick F. Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Her breadth and depth of experience as both a practitioner and a jurist will make her well suited to serve on the Tenth Circuit.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote to confirm this excellent nominee.