Floor Statements

Madam President, it was just one year ago last week that victims of violence, members of law enforcement and those committed to working against domestic and sexual violence celebrated the signing of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The signing of this important legislation on March 7 last year was an enormous accomplishment for a divided Congress, which came together to pass meaningful and historic legislation that protects all victims. One year later, we honor those victims and survivors by renewing our commitment to our shared goal of ending domestic and sexual violence.

Our bipartisan effort last year is making lives better today. The new nondiscrimination provisions we fought so hard to protect are ensuring that all victims, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, have access to lifesaving programs and cannot be turned away. As I have said many times, ``a victim is a victim is a victim.'' While some called for us to cast the most vulnerable groups among us aside and pass a watered down bill, I am proud that we held firm in our beliefs. This could not have been done without the leadership and commitment of Senator Crapo and Senator Murkowski, who fought within their caucus to preserve a fully inclusive reauthorization and stood with me in the Senate to protect all survivors. In the House, Congressman Tom Cole was a critical voice in calling for the particularly urgent need to address abuse on tribal lands. I thank them today, as I did 1 year ago, for their dedication and their partnership.

Every week, we are learning more about the impact of this important law. Last month, the Department of Justice launched a pilot project in which three tribes--the Umatilla, the Pascua Yaqui, and the Tulalip-- will begin to exercise their authority to prosecute non-Indian offenders who commit acts of domestic violence against an Indian on tribal land. Until now, non-Indian abusers were essentially immune from prosecution, a fact they would use to terrorize their victims. This new authority marks the beginning of the end of those days and is a watershed moment in our commitment to end the epidemic of violence against Indian women that has for too long been ignored. We fought hard to ensure this provision remained in the bill and it will save lives. Attorney General Holder, associate attorney general West and deputy associate attorney general Hirsch deserve praise for making careful implementation of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act a top priority.

Less than 2 weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was taking additional steps under our VAWA reauthorization to prevent the sexual assault and abuse of immigrants in our detention facilities. This was in response to a provision in the VAWA law requiring that all DHS facilities comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act to prevent sexual abuse and assault. There is still much work to be done to protect immigrant women, and I look forward to continuing to work with DHS to ensure that they are doing all they can to protect those in their custody. I also remain committed to passing legislation to increase the number of U visas available for immigrant victims of violence. That powerful law enforcement

tool helps keep all of us safe by encouraging victims to report criminals who pose a danger to our communities.

And last week, we heard about the impact services under VAWA have on victims--and how much more we must do. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, in their annual National Domestic Violence Counts Census, found that every day 9,000 service requests go unmet because of a lack of resources. This is not acceptable. Every day tens of thousands of victims turn to domestic and sexual violence services providers for support through emergency safe shelters, legal assistance, and child support groups, and we must do all we can to ensure these needs are met.

In my nearly 40 years in the Senate, few issues have meant more to me than passing an inclusive Violence Against Women Act. The law is an example of how the Federal Government, in cooperation with state and local communities, can help solve problems. By providing new tools and resources to communities all around the country, we have helped bring the crimes of rape and domestic violence out of the shadows. I am proud of the work we did last year and I hope that a bipartisan Senate can come together this year to pass other, meaningful bills to support law enforcement and victims, like the Justice For All Act and the Runaway and Homelessness Youth Act.

Madam President, in the last few weeks, we have wasted precious floor time and energy to overcome filibusters on several judicial nominations. The majority leader was forced to file cloture on judicial nominees in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Puerto Rico, and Tennessee. This was the case, even though every single one of those nominations had the support of home State Senators--whether Democrat or Republican. In fact, seven of the eight judges confirmed in the last 2 weeks after filibusters were defeated were confirmed overwhelmingly with 90 or more votes. So why were we forced to overcome unnecessary procedural obstacles even though these judges were non-controversial and were filling longstanding vacancies in their districts? It is because Senate Republicans continue to try to slow down all confirmations in the Senate.

Today, we must again vote to end a filibuster on a judicial nomination. Carolyn McHugh, nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, is a distinguished jurist who has served on the Utah Court of Appeals for nearly a decade. She has the support of both her home State Republican senators--Senator Hatch and Senator Lee. Her nomination could and should have been confirmed last year. She was unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee on November 14, 2013, but because Republicans refused to consent to a confirmation vote by the full Senate and Senate Republicans would not consent to holding her nomination in the Senate, Judge McHugh's nomination was returned to the President at the end of last year. She then had to be re-nominated and re-processed through committee this year and was again reported out of the Judiciary Committee without opposition on January 16, 2014.

After tonight's vote to end this unnecessary Republican filibuster, the Senate will waste up to 30 hours waiting for post-cloture time to burn, even though Judge McHugh will then be confirmed overwhelmingly. It is unlikely that much, if any, of the 30 hours will be used to explain why Republicans found it necessary to block the Senate from promptly considering Judge McHugh's nomination last year and again this year.

Republicans continue to obstruct on every nomination, even though there are currently 89 Federal judicial vacancies, 34 of which have been deemed emergency vacancies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In stark contrast, there were only 56 judicial vacancies at the same point in President Bush's tenure. The comparison is even more troubling when you consider the 33 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. We could lower the number of judicial vacancies today to less than 70 if Senate Republicans would simply consent to voting on the pending nominees. We have not had fewer than 70 vacancies since May 2009, more than 4 years ago. And for most of President Obama's tenure in office, judicial vacancies have hovered around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to votes on judicial nominations even when they cannot muster anything upon which to justify their delay.

There are no excuses for the delays except sheer partisanship. Twenty-one of the 33 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. And 31 of the 33 judicial nominees currently pending on the floor were voted out of Committee with bipartisan support. It is clear that Senate Republicans have decided to use the rules change as another excuse to further accomplish their partial government shut down. Before the rules change, Senate Republicans used anonymous holds to delay confirming qualified judicial nominees, and dragged their feet every step of the way to slow down the confirmation process. Senate Democrats changed the rules precisely because of these delay tactics, which were causing great harm to the judicial system and negatively impacting those Americans who were seeking justice in our Federal courts. The American people who have sought to obtain justice in our Federal courts deserve speedy and prompt justice. These petty partisan tactics on display are not worthy of the Senate.

Shortly, I hope we can overcome the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Carolyn McHugh to fill a vacancy in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has served since 2005 as a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals and as the presiding judge of that court since 2012. She previously worked in private practice at Parr Brown Gee & Loveless as an associate (1983-1987) and subsequently as a shareholder (1987-2005). She has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Utah Law School and at the University of Utah College of Social and Behavioral Science. Judge McHugh earned her J.D., Order of the Coif, from the University of Utah Law School in 1982. After law school, she clerked for Judge Bruce S. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge McHugh ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit, its highest rating. She has the support of her home State senators, Senator Hatch and Senator Lee. The Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by roll call vote to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and by voice vote on January 16, 2014.

I thank the majority leader for filing a cloture petition to end the filibuster of Judge McHugh's nomination. I hope my fellow senators will join me today to end this filibuster so that she can begin working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, nearly 30 years ago, I joined a good friend, the late Hub Vogelmann, along with a Republican Congressman, a Democratic Governor, and President Reagan's EPA Administrator, on a hike to the summit of Vermont's iconic peak, Camel's Hump. We had a goal in mind. We wanted to observe first-hand the effects of acid raid. When we arrived at the summit, we saw the evidence we feared. You did not have to be a scientist to see it: a scar burned across the peak of Camel's Hump and across all of the peaks of the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks. Due to human action, weather patterns had changed, altering the very chemistry of rainfall on a grand scale. As a result, we caused profound and large-scale damage to life sustaining ecosystems.

There were Democrats and Republicans, scientists and bureaucrats on that mountain. We returned to Washington, united and eager to address the problem. It was not easy. We had to overcome strong objections from industry and develop an entirely new cap-and-trade regulatory framework. In the end, a Democratic majority in Congress passed, and Republican President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act amendments.

Once again, we are confronted with irrefutable evidence that humans have altered not just the weather of a region, but the climate of the entire planet. This time, we do not need to climb mountains to see the damage. We see it in New England's flood ravaged river valleys, California's scorched farmland, Alaska's retreating glaciers, Wyoming's burnt forests, and super-storm ravaged coastlines.

Before we even get to the accumulated--and accumulating--scientific evidence for climate change and the carbonization of our fragile envelope of atmosphere, we only need to apply common sense. As we look around us, anywhere, everywhere, and at any time, doesn't it just stand to reason that human activity is contributing to documented changes in our atmosphere, and to climate change? I certainly have seen it in my lifetime. But I have also seen people try to deny all reason and the evidence all around us.

The scientists have done their work. We now better understand the human causes of climate change and we understand its profound and accelerating impact. Unfortunately, too many policy makers deny the evidence, or refuse to cross political lines to solve the problem. I say it is time we wake up and act on climate change.

We have taken some steps in the right direction. This past summer, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has begun creating new carbon emission standards for future power plants. The Department of Energy is working on ground-breaking energy technologies, and the Department of Transportation is studying transportation planning to address future risks and vulnerabilities from extreme weather and climate change. The Transportation Department is also addressing vehicle fuel efficiency which is saving vehicle owners and operators billions of dollars a year. These are all positive changes, but before we rest on our laurels, we have to understand that there are not nearly enough to address the problem at hand. Congress needs to cast aside partisan blinders by enacting legislation that prioritizes renewable energy development, supports energy efficient technologies, and taxes carbon pollution.

It is time to take a stand against misguided policies and projects that put future generations at risk, and in my State, we believe that includes the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department recently released its long-awaited environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL pipeline. I am deeply troubled that the State Department's analysis did not take into account the overwhelming evidence that this project will further accelerate the release of greenhouse gas pollution, which will intensify climate change. There is a mountain of evidence that the carbon pollution, drinking water threats, public health threats, and safety threats from this pipeline are so great that it is not in our national interest, and its permit should be denied. I realize this goes against some public opinion polls, but I believe we must stamp out our addiction to fossil fuels and fight back against these threats to our land, water, air, and healthy communities around the world.

We have to understand that climate change is not simply an environmental challenge. Creating a green energy sector is not just about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is about providing jobs for Americans in the renewable energy and energy efficiency fields. It is about strengthening national security in America by having greater control over our energy sources and breaking the stranglehold of oil on the transportation system. What should unite all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, is assuring that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe.

We have come together before. We did it back in the time of President

George H.W. Bush. We joined hands across the aisle and across regions of this great country to solve problems. Why can't we do it again? Isn't that the least we owe to our planet? Isn't that the least we owe to our children and grandchildren?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue as in morning business for about 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I feel honored to be a Member of the Senate and to be President pro tempore. But I cannot think of any greater honor than this morning, when I was able to introduce to the Senate an old and dear friend, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Marcelle and I have been friends of His Holiness for decades. We count that as a great treasure, as does Senator Feinstein, whom I saw earlier on the floor, another long-time friend of His Holiness, along with her husband.

I have watched him for so many years in his representation of the Tibetan people. He is joined on the floor by another Buddhist, Senator Hirono of Hawaii. The gracious comments of Senator Reid reflect how people feel about him. I think of the faith of his people and how they are moved. I told his Holiness of this story when I walked through the streets of Lhasa, Tibet, years ago, and a man holding a small child saw me and pointed to my camera and held up a picture of His Holiness.

He was risking being imprisoned for having that. But he insisted I take his picture. I did. I have given that photograph to His Holiness. I told him the story, that when we asked the man why he risked prison to show the picture of His Holiness, he said: Because people have to know. The world has to know the great faith of the Tibetan people longing for the autonomy they deserve to practice their faith.

Fortunately, they have as a symbol of that faith the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, a man who touches everybody's conscience. He touches this Catholic every time I see him. It goes beyond whatever faith you are. He is a gift to the world. I am so honored to have been able to introduce him here today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I so strongly concur with the statement of the senior Senator from Illinois, the deputy majority leader. It is similar to statements he has made not only here but in private and in public. He has been one of Mr. Adegbile's strongest supporters throughout this matter.

Both he and I know this nominee well. We know he is qualified to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. More than that, we know Debo Patrick Adegbile as a real person and not as the caricature we have heard from some on the other side. I think all of us have a responsibility to vote yes or no on any issue, and at least to deal with the facts as they are, not with distortions like some of the ones we have heard about this wonderful person.

The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 in the wake of the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education,

and is charged with enforcing Federal laws prohibiting discrimination, and upholding the civil and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. From protecting voting rights to combating human trafficking to protecting against religious or racial discrimination, we all know that more work needs to be done. The Civil Rights Division plays a pivotal role in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.

Debo is a man of the highest character and the utmost integrity. He is the kind of proven leader we need at the Civil Rights Division. He is a superb lawyer, to begin with. He has a compelling personal story of triumph over adversity.

He is the son of immigrants from Ireland and Nigeria. He was born in the Bronx. He grew up in poverty, amidst periods of homelessness, but he overcame all these obstacles to attend Connecticut College and the New York University School of Law. He then litigated for 7 years at one of the Nation's top law firms--picked because he was the best of the best of the best.

He then served as legal director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the LDF. This is a civil rights organization founded nearly 70 years ago by the great Thurgood Marshall, who recognized the need for people to stand up for the constitutional right of all Americans to fair, honest, and competent legal representation. During his time at LDF, Debo argued two landmark cases on voting rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The nominee is widely regarded as an expert on civil rights law. He has received an outpouring of support from the civil rights community.

Think of some of the people who support him. Congressman John Lewis has expressed his ``unwavering support'' for Debo's nomination, stating that his ``intelligence, legal acumen, experience, and commitment to his craft, reflect deeply on his ability to offer the Civil Rights Division outstanding leadership into the future.''

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 83 other civil rights organizations called Debo ``a tireless advocate, a skilled litigator, and a well-respected member of the legal community who is extraordinarily qualified for and suited to this position.''

And the Congressional Black Caucus stated that he is ``one of the preeminent civil rights litigators of his generation,'' and ``offers precisely the type of experience, professionalism, and leadership skills necessary to run the Division.''

Support for Debo's nomination extends from the civil rights community to supporters business and law enforcement. Kenneth Chenault, chairman and chief executive officer of American Express, wrote that he has been ``continually impressed by his skills and professionalism--along with his steadfast commitment to upholding civil rights.''

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives gave its ``unwavering support'' to his nomination. We have letters of support from Detective Terrance Daniels, a retired member of the New York City Police Department; the New York State Attorney General; and several district attorneys and Federal prosecutors.

Paul Clement, the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, said: ``I have litigated both with and against Debo and have heard him argue in the Supreme Court. I have always found him to be a formidable advocate of the highest intellect, skills and integrity.''

We have a huge list of his supporters, and I ask unanimous consent that the whole list be printed in the Record.

I have been privileged to work in civil practice, where I defended people, and also to have spent 8 years as a prosecutor. I stand behind nobody in my support of law enforcement. I was picked as one of the three outstanding prosecutors in this country when I was a prosecutor. But I believed throughout all that time that everybody who was prosecuted deserved the best of representation.

Despite Debo's expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a single case: Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal of his death sentence for the 1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. I condemn that murder. I condemn the murderer for it. But, just as the British in the Boston Massacre deserved representation, and got it from John Adams; just as the man who murdered a number of people, including a couple of teenagers, deserved representation from John Roberts, a Republican who is now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; so, too, did Mumia Abu- Jamal deserve legal representation.

The murder of Officer Faulkner was a horrific tragedy, and my heart goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members who have lost a loved one in the line of duty. Officer Faulkner served bravely to protect our community and to defend our system of justice and our Constitution. We are trying to defend it too.

It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many of us to support programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. I might point out to some of my friends who stand here in righteous indignation against this nomination, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I began a bulletproof vest program that has bought bulletproof vests for officers all over this country. It is up for reauthorization. It has saved the lives of police officers. Not a single Republican has joined me in the effort to reauthorize what was a bipartisan piece of legislation that actually saves the lives of police officers. But, they will come down here and wax eloquently and misleadingly against this good nominee.

If you listen to them or you listen to FOX News, you might think the nominee himself is a criminal. Of course he is not. These attacks launched against this nominee demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a lawyer and the very constitutional system of justice that law enforcement officers all swear an oath to protect. It is time to clear the record.

First, the assertion that Debo made the decision for LDF to take on Abu-Jamal's case is simply not accurate. That decision was made by the previous president of LDF. The nominee we are considering today has testified under oath that it was not his decision. But once the decision was made, and he was appointed to do it, he had a duty, as an officer of the court, to do his best to represent his client, no matter how distasteful or unpopular.

Debo's role in the Abu-Jamal case was limited to two Supreme Court briefs and one Third Circuit brief. Attempts to attribute more to Debo, including the out-of-court statements by other LDF attorneys, are unfounded. These remind me of the attacks that were made against Thurgood Marshall when he was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time, Republican Senator Keating provided an articulate response of why such attacks are unreasonable and unfair:

If counsel is suggesting something that Judge Marshall must

have the responsibility for every little action that is taken

by any lawyer who has been appearing in an NAACP case, he is

imposing a standard of responsibility which certainly goes

beyond any point of reasonableness. Judge Marshall's conduct

and his ethical standards have not been questioned in these

hearings. It is ridiculous to suggest that he may be

disqualified for judicial service because some other lawyers

who appeared in an NAACP case may or may not have done things

which counsel considers questionable and where there is

absolutely no showing that Judge Marshall has anything to do

with the conduct at issue.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if it had been Debo's decision to represent Mr. Abu-Jamal, that should not disqualify him from public service. Our legal system is an adversary system, predicated upon advocacy for both sides. Without this, our justice system would be a sham. We do not criticize John Adams; we do not criticize John Roberts. Now-Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005:

[I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back

before the founding of the country that lawyers are not

identified with the positions of their clients. The most

famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the

British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that

for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution

in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule

of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law . . . [T]hat

you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of

the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf

of the client, is critical to the fair administration of

justice.

It is for this reason that as a nominee before the Senate John Roberts was not criticized for choosing to provide pro bono assistance to John Errol Ferguson, a prisoner in Florida who had been sentenced to death for killing eight people, including two teenagers, in the late 1970s.

I agree with what John Adams did. I agree with what John Roberts did. I agree with what Debo did, too. Whether it is John Adams or John Roberts, the principle that all sides deserve an effective counsel is at the bedrock of our constitutional system. We cannot equate the lawyer with the conduct of those we represent if we want our justice system to endure. After Debo's confirmation hearing in early January, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee himself expressed the same sentiment when he said: ``You always have to take into consideration that everybody under our constitution is entitled to a defense.''

Some have argued that the Abu-Jamal case is somehow different because it became a ``political cause'' and was no longer just a case about defending an unpopular client. But regardless of who the defendant might be, the constitutional right to a fair trial has nothing to do with politics and cannot be dismissed as merely a ``political cause.'' In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the district attorney's appeal of the lower court decisions, thereby affirming the decisions to vacate the death sentence. However unpopular LDF's decision to represent Abu-Jamal might be, these decisions by independent Federal judges affirm that this case was about defending the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and not merely some political stunt.

Finally, while criticism of a nominee's qualifications is certainly part of the appointment process, some attacks are--by any measure--out of bounds. Last month, while Debo's nomination was still in the Judiciary Committee, the Washington Times published an editorial caricature of Debo that was racially-tinged, offensive, and beyond the pale. I have spoken out against the insulting attempts to defame the nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I do so again today. I would also hope that those who are opposing Debo's nomination would similarly distance themselves from them.

Debo Adegbile is one of the Nation's leading civil rights lawyers. Those of us who have worked with him cannot recognize the caricature that some are trying to paint. I have seen him testify before a crowded Senate hearing room. I have heard him quietly give counsel in a private meeting room. I know him to be a thoughtful, respectful, and competent person, a good family man, a good husband and father.

I regret these attacks. I have been here 40 years. I do not know if I have ever heard a time in those 40 years when a person was so misrepresented in the attacks against him. I hope now some of those who attack him, saying they are standing up for law enforcement, would do things like join on the bulletproof vest bill and others they refuse to.

I see the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader have whatever time he needs.

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

Mr. President, to use part of my time, we are finally going to vote to end the filibusters of four judicial nominees to the Federal district court in Arkansas, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and California.

None of these nominees is controversial. Timothy Brooks is to fill a vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas; Pedro Delgado Hernandez is to fill a vacancy in the District of Puerto Rico; Pamela Reeves is to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of Tennessee; and Vince Chhabria is to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Northern District of California. They were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support from both the Republicans and Democrats.

Incidentally, all of them have the highest rating by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary--a ``well-qualified'' rating. It is rare to have all four nominees with that high rating.

I mentioned this because nominees who would normally have just gone through in a matter of weeks have been held up, and held up, and held up, and held up, for no good reason. Pamela Reeves was originally nominated in May of last year--almost 1 year ago. Timothy Brooks and Pedro Delgado Hernandez were originally nominated last June. Vince Chhabria was nominated last July. Everybody knows they all could have been confirmed last year. They all had strong Republican and Democratic support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but instead Republicans blocked their confirmation all year long until they had to be returned to the President at the end of the year. These nominees then had to be renominated and reprocessed. People who had already gone through the whole procedure had to go through it all over again.

After they had been voted out with strong support by the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans again forced us to file cloture to end the filibusters of these nominations. It will have taken the Senate 8, 9, and 10 months to bring these nominees up for a vote, and that is shameful.

What this does to the nominees is outrageous. These are people with distinguished careers, and all of a sudden, they have to put it on hold. Once they are nominated to be a judge, everything in their life is put on hold. Most of them have to take a big cut in pay to take the job to begin with, and then they sit there month after month after month.

Everybody has told them there is no controversy to their nomination, and that when their nomination does come to a vote, they will be easily confirmed. At some point they have to say: When is this when? It was not last year when it should have been, and we are well into this year when it comes before the Senate.

I have heard some Republican Senators say the filibuster is dead now that the rules have changed. That is simply wrong. The Senate Republicans are just filibustering nominees for the sake of filibustering them under different rules. They refuse to consent to vote on dozens of pending noncontroversial judicial nominees, and that means these nominees sit on the floor for months, and months, and months before we have to overcome unnecessary procedural hurdles. The result is that precious time and resources better devoted to other critical business is wasted on overcoming the dilatory tactics of Senate Republicans.

We could be done with this, and debating and voting on things that are critically important to this country--everything from rebuilding the decaying bridges and roads of this Nation, to health care for the elderly, to health research and all the things we need. Instead we spend time on the pettifoggery and, I would say, total balderdash in the arguments from the other side holding up these nominees.

These are the same people who shut down the Federal Government last year. This government shutdown cost the taxpayers of this country tens of billions of dollars and cost the private industry tens of billions of dollars more. They caught so much grief for this disruption that, I suppose, they do not want to have a complete shutdown of the Federal judiciary. Instead, they do it by a sort of water torture--drip, by drip, by drip. They are doing the same thing to the Federal judiciary that they did to the Federal Government, trying to close it down. It may be the case that Republicans cannot stop a noncontroversial judicial nominee from eventually receiving an up-or-down vote, but they have done a pretty darn good job of delaying five judicial nominees from filling longstanding vacancies. This kind of needless delay only hurts the American people. It is hurting the Federal judiciary. It is one of the reasons so many people in this country are angry at what happens here, when they see one thing after another delayed and slowed up.

I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the qualified judicial nominees before us, and I hope the Senate Republicans will not continue to try to shut down the Federal judiciary. I hope they have learned how much the American people are angry at them for shutting down the Federal Government last year, which cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Timothy Brooks is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas. He has worked in private practice at Taylor Law Partners LLP for approximately 25 years, first as an associate (1989- 1993) and subsequently as a partner (1993-current). He has extensive experience as a litigator before both State and Federal courts, and in both civil and criminal cases. Mr. Brooks earned his J.D. with honors in 1989 from the University of Arkansas School of Law, where he served as an editor on the University of Arkansas Law Review. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Brooks well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He received the support of both of his home State senators, Senator Boozman and Senator Pryor. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.

Pedro Delgado Hernandez has worked in private practice at O'Neill & Borges LLC for nearly 15 years, first as an associate (1986-1990) and then as a partner (1990-current). From 1995 to 1996, he served as a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico. He previously served as solicitor general for Puerto Rico's Department of Justice by appointment from 1993 to 1995. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Juan Torruella, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, from 1984 to 1986. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1979 to 1985. He earned his B.S. from the University of Puerto Rico in 1979. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1983. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Hernandez well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto

Rico, its highest rating. He received the support of Representative Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.

Pamela Reeves has worked in private practice since 2002 at Reeves, Herbert & Anderson, P.A., as an attorney and managing attorney. She previously worked as a partner at Watson, Hollow & Reeves, P.L.C. from 1988 to 2002. She also served as an adjunct professor for trial practice at the University of Tennessee Law School (1991-1996). Following graduation from law school, she worked as an associate at Griffin, Burkhalter, Cooper & Reeves from 1979 to 1985. She earned her J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1979. She has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, and one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Tennessee, from 2006 to 2012. If confirmed, she would be the first woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Reeves well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, its highest rating. She received the support of her home State senators, Senator Alexander and Senator Corker. The Judiciary Committee reported her by voice vote to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.

Vince Chhabria has served as a San Francisco deputy city attorney for government litigation since 2005, and has served as the co-chief of appellate litigation since 2011. He previously worked in private practice as an associate at Covington & Burling LLP from 2002 to 2004, and as an associate at Keker & Van Nest LLP in 2001. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Chhabria served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges: Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1998 to 1999; Judge James Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1999 to 2000; and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2001 to 2002. Mr. Chhabria earned his J.D., Order of the Coif, in 1998 from Berkeley Law School. If confirmed, he would serve as California's first Article III judge of South Asian descent. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Chhabria well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, its highest rating. He received the support of his home State senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again with bipartisan support on January 16, 2014.

I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. And I continue to hope that Senate Republicans will change course so that we can work together to confirm without further delay noncontroversial nominees to longstanding judicial vacancies.

At some time reality has to catch up with the rhetoric around this place. I heard speeches earlier today on how people want to stand up for law enforcement. I would remind everybody that one of the things we have actually done in this body and the U.S. House of Representatives to help law enforcement was the bulletproof vest program.

This is a bipartisan program that was started by the former Republican Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and myself to provide bulletproof vests to police departments that could not afford them. We have had some of the most gripping testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The distinguished Presiding Officer may recall one police officer from a northern State who came to testify before us. He told us how much he loved being a police officer. He said the only thing he loves more than being a police officer are his parents, his wife, and his children. He said: ``If it were not for this,'' and he reached under the table and pulled up a bulletproof vest. You could see two bullets stuck in it. He said, ``If I had not been wearing this, I never would have seen my parents or my wife or my children,'' all of whom were sitting behind him.

He said, ``Please keep this program going.'' His family got to visit him in the hospital where he had a couple of cracked ribs. If he had not been wearing his bulletproof vest, he said they would have been visiting him in the morgue instead.

I only mentioned this story because every single Democrat has agreed to the reauthorization of the bulletproof vest bill. We have not had a single Republican step forward to say: We will stand up to protect the men and women in uniform of this country who protect us. Having served 8 years in law enforcement, I find that shameful.

I say, stop trying to shut down the Federal judiciary, but also stand up for the protection of the men and women in uniform in the police departments throughout this country.

From the time Senator Campbell and I first started working on this bill decades ago, this bill has always been a bipartisan bill. Decades ago, we heard testimony from a police officer talking about seeing his parents, wife, and children when he has had to face gunfire in the line of duty.

Do not let us hear from the same parents, spouses, or children about why we did not protect their husband or wife, son or daughter, when we could have. Why did we play silly games when not one single Republican would step forward and say: Let's pass this bulletproof vest bill. Let's stand up for the men and women in uniform in this country.

Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary situation?

Is there a time for a vote?

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on the nomination?

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

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

Mr. President, we are all painfully aware of the many resource rich countries whose leaders care far more about maintaining their grip on power and enriching themselves than addressing the needs of their people. The departed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was a good example, and in this hemisphere Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez and his successor President Nicolas Maduro stand out.

President Chavez, a former army officer who was swept into power in a wave of popular discontent after decades of corrupt, elitist governments, mastered the art of deception. He was a cult personality and virulently anti-United States, who dished out favors to poor communities as he ruined the country's economy, destroyed any semblance of an independent judiciary, changed the constitution so he could hold onto power indefinitely, and used the police to intimidate the press.

In the year since Chavez' death, President Maduro has tried to fill his shoes. He has adopted Chavez' divisive, anti-U.S. rhetoric, but he lacks Chavez' charisma, and the prognosis for positive change in Venezuela is increasingly bleak.

Early last month a few student demonstrations quickly spiraled into the largest public protests against President Maduro since he came to power. Having been elected by a razor-thin margin, the smallest in nearly half a century, many Venezuelans hoped the stultifying reality of widespread unemployment and economic stagnation would inspire reforms. Regrettably, President Maduro did not heed the people's message.

Instead, inflation has skyrocketed in the oil-rich country and food shortages have plagued local markets. Additionally, the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2013-2014 ranks Venezuela number three on its list of economies damaged by high crime rates and violence, contributing to the resolve of the thousands of Venezuelans who took to the streets in protest. From San Cristobal, to Maracaibo, to the capital city of Caracas, the demonstrations have attracted students, merchants, and middle-class professionals in a challenge to government repression and mismanagement.

For several weeks images of the protests trickled out of Venezuela through various social media platforms, offering a limited, unfiltered perspective amidst the state-run media's censorship of impartial coverage. Because of the fog caused by this lack of objective information, it took nearly 2 weeks for many major U.S. news sources to arrive in country to begin coverage.

The distorted, self-serving portrayal of the protestors as treasonous fascists by the Maduro administration and the state-run media has been compounded by the deaths of some 18 people and the arbitrary arrests of hundreds, and risks inciting a further crackdown against the opposition. Additionally, there have been reports that foreign journalists have been detained while trying to cover the protests, with up to 20 having been physically assaulted, according to a Colombian news source that has since been banned from Venezuela for covering the protests.

The U.S. State Department's recently released Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013 describes the Maduro government's efforts to impede freedom of expression. The increasingly heavy-handed and violent actions over the last few weeks have exacerbated the situation.

As one of Venezuela's most important trading partners, and as a nation whose people take note of the well-being and basic rights of other peoples in our hemisphere and beyond, the United States has an interest in ensuring that human rights are not violated with impunity. I hope President Maduro will not continue to make the mistake of other messianic, autocratic leaders who demonize their opponents. In Venezuela they represent roughly half of the population. He would do far better to work with all Venezuelans to reduce tensions and find real solutions to the country's problems. The people of his country deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly, as I have several times over the past year, about the government of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, which continues its aggressive clamp down on press freedom. Most recently, political cartoonist Xavier Bonilla was reprimanded for a cartoon he drew, and the newspaper he works for, El Universo, was fined for publishing it. El Universal, one of Ecuador's most respected dailies, has been the target of one of the dozens of harassing lawsuits filed by President Correa.

The cartoon by Mr. Bonilla, who goes by the pen name Bonil, depicts a police raid at the home of an investigative journalist, Fernando Villavicencio, who claimed to have documented evidence of corruption in the government. It shows the police knocking down the door to Mr. Villavicencio's house and parading out with computers and filing cabinets.

A government-established media oversight agency, Superintendency of Information and Communication, SUPERCOM, used Ecuador's vague communications law to sanction both Mr. Bonilla and El Universo for publishing an ``institutional position'' over the guilt or innocence of people involved in investigations. It subsequently ordered a major investigation, required a ``correction'' to the cartoon, and fined the newspaper. In doing so, the Correa administration sent a clear message to journalists that criticism of government misconduct will not be tolerated.

I have spoken several times about President Correa's attacks on press freedom and I will continue doing so as long as these restrictive laws are enforced and as long as journalists are threatened for their work. Most recently I recognized the efforts of Janet Hinostroza, an Ecuadoran investigative journalist who was honored by the Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, for her commitment to fighting for a free press. Ms. Hinostroza is continually threatened for her work exposing government corruption. Unfortunately, the harassment she and Mr. Bonilla face illustrates a norm, not an anomaly, when it comes to President Correa's attempts to intimidate and silence his critics.

The absurdity of censoring a cartoonist aside, this latest attack further erodes what remains of an independent press in Ecuador. It explains why Human Rights Watch and CPJ continually rank Ecuador among the world's worst for press freedom. It is shameful, it is an embarrassment for the hemisphere, and the people of Ecuador deserve better.

Mr. President, for almost two decades Judge William Sessions has served as a Federal judge for the District of Vermont. Last month Judge Sessions announced he would take senior status later this year. I have worked with Senator Sanders, Representative Welch, and the Vermont Bar Association to convene a merit commission to find highly qualified candidates to serve on the Vermont District Court so I can then recommend them to the President.

I know I speak on behalf of all Vermonters, no matter what their background, when I thank Judge Sessions for his years of distinguished public service and applaud him for agreeing to continue his judicial service even after he takes senior status this summer. Because of his continued dedication, Vermont will have one of the most highly respected and extraordinarily capable jurists on the Federal bench. I am proud to call Judge Sessions my friend, and I am honored to have cast my vote to confirm his nomination 18 years ago.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the completion of my remarks a Rutland Herald article written by Brent Curtis that recounts his many accomplishments.

There are only two authorized district judgeships in Vermont. We are the second smallest State in the Union. So, when President Clinton asked for my recommendation to fill a vacancy in my native State, I did not take this task lightly. I knew the people of Vermont deserved a judge with integrity, intelligence, and fairness, somebody whom anybody could go before--plaintiff or defendant, rich or poor, no matter their political background--and know they would have a fair hearing.

During my time in private practice as a litigant and then as State's attorney in Vermont, I experienced firsthand the tradition of legal excellence we have in Vermont. I know many Vermont lawyers who are among the best this country has to offer, and Bill Sessions earned a reputation as one of the finest trial lawyers in the State. He was widely respected by prosecutors and defense lawyers, and by the plaintiff and defense bars alike. He was praised by those who had been his co-counsel, by State and Federal judges and prosecutors, and even by those who had been his opposing counsel in court. It was a privilege to submit his name to the White House for nomination to the U.S. District Court. At the time, I told President Clinton this would be one nomination he would never have to question his judgment in making because he would have somebody who would always serve the country so well. The Senate confirmed him unanimously on August 11, 1995.

Judge Sessions received his B.A. from Middlebury College in 1969. Upon his graduation with honors from the George Washington University Law School in 1972, Judge Sessions served his country in the U.S. Army from 1972 to 1977 and in active service from 1972 to 1973. He also served as a law clerk to another friend of mine, Judge Hilton Dier of the Addison County District Court. Before his service on the Federal bench, Judge Sessions contributed to his community as an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School; in private practice; as the executive director of the Addison County Youth Services Bureau; and as a public defender in Addison County, VT.

During his years of service on the Federal bench, Judge Sessions has worked tirelessly to ensure that all those who come before him are treated fairly and with dignity. He is a judge who has taken seriously his commitment to both justice and the American people. He served for many years as a member of the Judicial Conference, composed of the leaders of the Federal judiciary.

Judge Sessions also served for a decade on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, eventually serving as its Chairman. Three Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, nominated him to this Commission, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously each time. As a commissioner, Judge Sessions made deeply significant contributions to American sentencing policy. He played an important role in the reduction of the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. He has done vital work to improve the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This was especially important following a number of Supreme Court cases that gave judges more discretion in the sentences they impose. Even after his time on the Sentencing Commission, Judge Sessions continued to work for better sentencing policy, publishing an article in a journal of the University of Virginia School of Law that explained how the three branches of government could work together to improve sentencing in America.

Judge Sessions has not forgotten what it is to be a Vermonter. He still finds time on weekends to be at farmers markets around Vermont. He is a familiar face at the booth for Blue Ledge Farm, a small Vermont dairy started by his daughter, Hannah, and son-in-law, Greg. I think of a picture of him holding a grandchild in one hand and making change for one of the customers with the other.

He is one of our country's most respected jurists. He is a lawyer's lawyer and a judge's judge. Marcelle and I think of him and Abi, his wife, as dear personal friends.

Our justice system has benefited a great deal from Judge Sessions' years of service. I thank Judge Sessions for all he has done as a Federal judge. I thank him for continuing to serve as a model jurist.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Is there a time agreement on the nomination?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the next nominee, James Donato of California, was originally nominated in June of 2013. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously.

I have heard from my friends on the Republican side that we should be concerned about emergency vacancies. This is an emergency vacancy. He was reported out unanimously for the first time last October. He had to be reported out a second time this year--again, unanimously. He has the strong support of the two Senators from California. So holding up and having a filibuster and going through all of that on this nomination is the kind of game playing that hurts the Federal judiciary. It is almost like the efforts made by our friends on the other side in closing down the government last year, and this is just a slow way to close down the Federal judiciary.

I urge immediate consideration and confirmation.

I would be happy to have a voice vote.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader and the Democratic floor staff for taking the necessary steps to confirm the four judicial nominees we have just confirmed between last night and today. I am sure the people in Connecticut, Arkansas, and California are thankful that their districts now have judges to help alleviate the heavy caseload in those districts and that they will now be able to have their cases decided in a more expeditious manner.

There are 28 more judicial nominees still currently pending on the Executive Calendar in States such as Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, and Wisconsin.

I hope Senate Republicans will not continue to politicize the filling of judicial vacancies. Americans in those States want a functioning Federal judiciary at full capacity so they can seek and obtain justice in an expeditious manner.

Vote Explanation

Madam President, late this week, Vermont will recognize the noteworthy legacy of Ed Koren, who

was recently named Vermont's second Cartoonist Laureate. A resident of Brookfield, VT, Mr. Koren is best known nationally for his distinctive creature cartoons that appear in the New Yorker. His work has also been featured in many other publications.

Mr. Koren grew up in Mount Vernon, NY, and attended Columbia University, where he first began sketching cartoons for the university's magazine. Encouraged by a favorable review of one of his earliest works, Mr. Koren then dedicated himself to drawing investigative and satirical cartoons. His hard work, quick wit, and unique social commentary are evidenced in his work. In true Vermont tradition, he has also found the time to volunteer as a firefighter in his small community for the past 26 years.

I am proud to recognize Ed Koren's achievement as Vermont's Cartoon Laureate. The Vermont Digger recently published a profile of this accomplished man who has adopted Vermont as his home that captures all that is so unique about his character and creativity. I ask that the article, ``Cartoonist Ed Koren earns a Vermont laurel, but don't expect him to rest on it,'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in recent years, as difficult budget questions have beset the debate in Washington about how best to rein in spending while meeting our shared responsibilities to Americans, our communities, and the world, our Nation's treasures--from the monuments that dot the National Mall to the historic relics that line the halls of the Smithsonian museums--have had to shore up spending and face the reality that the government simply can't foot the bill the way it used to.

Tough decisions in Washington have led many with the means to increase their charitable giving, but none compare to the generosity of David Rubenstein, businessman, family man, philanthropist. He is also a friend to many. But most importantly, he is a friend to many of America's national treasures. I cherish his friendship.

You need not walk far in Washington to find Mr. Rubenstein's mark. I hear often from Vermonters who have come to Washington, for work or a family vacation, who visit such iconic places as the National Zoo, the Kennedy Center, the Library of Congress, and, of course, the Smithsonians. All bear some sign of Mr. Rubenstein's generosity.

The New York Times recently featured a profile of this man and what he calls ``patriotic giving.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that profile be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I remember a dear friend to Marcelle and me. Stratton ``Stratty'' Lines was for more than 40 years the proprietor of the Oasis Diner in Burlington, VT. Throughout its history, the diner was the center of many a political discussion over a hearty breakfast or tasty lunch and lots of laughs too. At the center of all the activity was Stratty, a first-generation American who, with his family, built a successful business in downtown Burlington. One of Stratty's sons, David, describes his father as the ``quintessential Vermonter.'' Stratty was that and so much more. He was a good family man and a hard worker who cared about working people.

I have many fond memories of the Oasis Diner, perhaps chief among them, eating breakfast there, celebrating with Stratty, and thanking voters the morning after I was first elected to the Senate in 1974. The diner was a popular stop among visitors to Vermont, including President Bill Clinton and Vice President Walter Mondale. During their visits and during my many trips to the diner, Stratty imparted the wisdom and common sense for which he was so well known and will be long remembered.

In memory of Stratty Lines, I ask that the article by Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press, ``Oasis Diner proprietor Stratton `Stratty' Lines remembered as quintessential Vermonter,'' be printed in the Record.