Floor Statements

Mr. President, in this age of digital readers and electronic books, the fine craft of bookbinding may seem to some archaic. On the contrary: the fine skills, patience, and dedication required to mend the pages of some of our greatest treasures have become all the more critical to preserving printed books--for classics printed decades or centuries ago, to cookbooks or children's books that have been in our families for generations.

At Holzer Book Bindery in Hinesburg, VT, Marianna Holzer, a third- generation bookbinder, is doing just that. Her shop is lined with leather bound books, many restored by her own hand, and hand operated cast-iron presses that help her with her handcraft. Her clients range from towns and municipalities, to personal collectors, and extend far beyond the mountains of Vermont.

In 1960, her father, 30 years her mother's senior, closed down his own bindery business in Boston to settle in Putney. Marianna was in high school when, years after her father passed away, her mother set up their own bindery in the basement. Here, Marianna learned the basics of bindery from her mother, using the storied tools of her father. After studying plant and soil science at the University of Vermont, Marianna found herself working at Four Seasons Garden Center in Williston before longing for something new. She ultimately returned to her bookbinding roots, joining a small bindery in Jericho before opening her own shop in 2008.

Marianna now works alongside her husband and folk musician, Rik Palieri, who assists her. Today, her challenges are even greater, as she battles multiple sclerosis. People send their books and heirlooms from around the country, seeking her dexterity and her expertise. For Marianna, it is her true love of preserving the past and the sentiment it brings others that makes her excel at her craft. She honors her family legacy by using her grandfather's logo as her own.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about this exceptional Vermonter who has dedicated her life to bringing joy to others by repairing those precious keepsakes we chose to pass on to our loved ones: ``At Holzer Book Bindery, Repairing Old Volumes Is a Labor of Love.'' [Seven Days, February 19, 2014]

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut for his kind words. Having served as attorney general of his State and in various other roles in our courts, he understands very much when he says justice delayed is justice denied. Whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant, that is true.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and Senator Murphy of Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I began the year expressing my hope that we would set aside our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming qualified nominees to fill these critical vacancies facing our Federal judiciary. I have been here with both Republican and Democratic leadership, Republican and Democratic Presidents. Never in my 40 years in the Senate have I seen such an effort to exploit every means of delay for every judicial nomination, even when a nominee is supported by both Republicans and Democrats and supported by their home State Senators. This did not happen with President Ford, with President Carter, with President Reagan, with President George H.W. Bush, with President Clinton, with President George W. Bush. This President is treated differently.

Now, I have heard some Senate Republicans claim the majority leader can simply bring up these nominations for a vote whenever he chooses to do so. I think that is done with the hope that some in the press or some people watching may not understand they are hiding from the American people the fact that they are not letting the majority leader bring them up for a vote. In fact, if their claims were true, we would be voting to confirm four district court judges tonight. Instead, the Senate Republicans are deliberately obstructing and placing roadblocks so that each and every confirmation takes longer. It is very similar to what they did when they caused the needless and costly partial shutdown of the government. They shut down the government. Here, they are trying to shut down the judiciary.

This pointless obstruction is why Congress is so unpopular with the American people. They make it as difficult as possible to respond to the needs of our Federal judiciary. This has been going on since President Obama first took office in 2009. In fact, within a short time after the President was sworn in, Republicans filibustered his very first judicial nominee. That has never been done for any President of either party. Incidentally, that judicial nominee, who had the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, had the strong support of the senior Senator from his State, who was also the senior Republican then serving in the Senate. The most senior Republican Senator supported the nomination, but the Republican leadership said: No. We have to filibuster and block the nomination because, after all, it was President Obama's nomination, not President Bush's nomination.

It was around this time that the Republican leader said his primary goal was for President Obama to fail. Now, if a Democrat had said that about a Republican President, we would have heard about it ad infinitum.

We were forced to change the Senate Rules. This was something I was very reluctant to see done, but we did it because we have to get past this obstruction. Otherwise, our Federal judiciary would grind to a halt in many parts of the country. The worst part about it is when there are judicial nominees with the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators, but a tiny group in their leadership says: Oh, no, we cannot possibly vote on these. It might give President Obama a victory. This ignores the fact that he was elected twice by pretty significant margins. It also ignores the fact that the Federal judiciary has always been kept out of partisan politics. Instead, they do it to politicize the Federal judiciary more than I have seen in my 40 years here. It is a shame. It should stop.

Let's start acting like grownups in the Senate, not like children fighting in a sandbox. And then they wonder why the American people are so turned off. First they close down the Federal Government; now they are, by increments, closing down the Federal courts.

Tonight I hope we will vote to end the filibusters of four judicial nominees to Federal district courts in Connecticut, Arkansas, and California. Each of these nominees--Jeffrey Meyer to fill a vacancy to the District of Connecticut; James Maxwell Moody, Jr., to fill a vacancy to the Eastern District of Arkansas; and James Donato and Beth Labson Freeman to fill judicial emergency vacancies to the Northern District of California--were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the unanimous support of Republicans and Democrats. Yet, they have languished on the Senate floor for months. Because of Republican obstruction we are again wasting precious time to overcome procedural hurdles just to have an up-or-down vote on these worthy nominees.

I began the year expressing my hope that we would set aside our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming qualified nominees to fill critical vacancies facing our Federal Judiciary. Instead, it appears that Senate Republicans have decided to double down and to further exhaust every means of delay at their disposal, even when a nominee is supported by those on both sides of the aisle and supported by both home State Senators.

A few weeks ago, prior to recessing, Senator Pryor asked for unanimous consent to vote on the nominations of Timothy Brooks and James Moody to fill judicial vacancies in the Western and Eastern Districts of Arkansas. Both of these nominees had the bipartisan support of their home State senators, as well as the bipartisan support of every single member of the Judiciary Committee. Both these nominees could and should have been confirmed last year, as they were originally voted out of committee by voice vote last October and November, respectively. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans refused

to consent to a vote on their nominations as the year ended. This meant that these nominees had to be re-nominated and re-processed through committee. Having jumped through all of these additional hurdles, these nominees still cannot get a vote on their nominations as Senate Republicans continue to object. Senate Republicans claim that the majority leader himself can bring up these nominations for a vote whenever he chooses to do so. But what the Republicans are hiding from the American people is that they are deliberately obstructing and placing roadblocks so that each and every confirmation takes as long as humanly possible.

This illustrates why Congress is so unpopular with the American people. Here, you have lawmakers deliberately making it as difficult as possible to do something to address the needs of our Federal Judiciary. Republicans may see this as retribution for the rules change that occurred last year, but their steadfast obstruction only hurts the American people.

More than a month into the new year, we have confirmed just one judicial nominee. This is the case even though there are currently 96 judicial vacancies, 39 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 32 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. We could lower the number of judicial vacancies today to 64 if Senate Republicans would 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 continued to hover around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to votes on these nominations.

There are no excuses for the delays except sheer partisanship. All but 3 of the 32 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. Despite the self-imposed delays by Republicans, who demanded these nominees be sent back to the President to be re-nominated and re- processed through committee, the Judiciary Committee has worked hard to again report them out of committee. The only delay that is holding them up is the Republicans who have continuously objected to a vote on their nominations.

Almost all of the judicial nominees pending before the full Senate are uncontroversial. In fact, of the 32 judicial nominees currently pending, 30 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. The petty partisan tactics on display tonight are not even worthy of the playgrounds of our children and grandchildren, let alone the United States Senate.

It used to be that nominees for U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal were confirmed by unanimous consent without taking up any floor time. However, Republicans have now decided that they will delay the confirmation of these nominees as well. Once again, the only individuals who are hurt by these tit-for-tat political games are the American people. When a State lacks the necessary law enforcement officers they need to keep its streets safe from criminals, it is the American people that are hurt. I hope that Senate Republicans will re- think this misguided strategy of obstruction and do-nothingness.

Shortly, I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the following qualified judicial nominees:

Jeffrey Meyer is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. He has served since 2006 as a professor of law at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and since 2010 as a visiting professor of law at Yale Law School. He served as senior counsel to the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Connecticut from 1995 to 2004, and as appeals chief from 2000 to 2004. Prior to his work as a Federal prosecutor, he worked as an associate at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC from 1993 to 1995, and at Shearman & Sterling LLP in 1993, and from 1990 to 1991. He worked as a staff attorney for Vermont Legal Aid from 1992 to 1993. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges, including Justice Harry Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Donald Ross of the Eighth Circuit, and Judge James Oakes of the second Circuit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Meyer well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, its highest rating. He has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last September, and once again, last month.

Judge James Moody is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Since 2003, he has served as a circuit court judge in Arkansas's Sixth Judicial Circuit. He has presided over 1,000 cases in the Arkansas State Court Systems. He previously worked in private practice at Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP as a partner from 1994 to 2003, and as an associate from 1989 to 1994. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Moody well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He has the strong bipartisan support of both his home State Senators, Senator Pryor and Senator Boozman. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last November, and once again, last month.

James Donato is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 2009, he has worked in private practice as a partner at Sherman & Sterling LLP. He has served pro bono as a court appointed mediator in the Northern District of California since 2002, handling civil rights actions against state and local law enforcement departments. He previously worked as a Partner at Cooley LLP from 1998 to 2009, and as a special counsel from 1996 to 1998. He served as a deputy city attorney in the Trial Division of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office from 1993 to 1996, and as an Associate at Morrison & Foerster LLP from 1990 to 1993. Following his graduation from Stanford Law School, he clerked for Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Donato earned his B.A. in 1983 from the University of California, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his M.A. in history in 1984 at Harvard University, and his J.D. in 1988 from Stanford Law School, where he served as senior editor of the Stanford Law Review. He has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last October, and once again, last month.

Judge Beth Freeman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 2001, she has served as a California State judge in San Mateo County Superior Court. She served as the presiding judge from 2011 to 2012. During her 12 years on the bench, she has presided over approximately 150 jury trials and over a thousand bench trials. She previously served as a deputy county counsel to the San Mateo County Counsel's Office from 1983 to 2001. She worked in private practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson in Washington, DC as an associate attorney from 1979 to 1981. Judge Freeman earned her B.A. with distinction from the University of California,

Berkeley in 1976. She earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. She has the strong support of both her home State Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein. She was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last October, and once again, last month.

I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. 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.

I yield the floor.

I see the majority leader is on the floor. Obviously, he is seeking recognition.

Mr. President, when I was in third grade, I read all of Dickens and all of Robert Louis Stevenson. I remember two words that really struck me during that time. The words ``pettifoggery'' and ``balderdash.'' I have heard more pettifoggery and balderdash on the other side this evening than I could imagine.

The fact of the matter is this. The Republican Party--and many of them are dear friends of mine--orchestrated a partial shutdown of the government last year. It cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and it accomplished nothing. Well, I shouldn't say it accomplished nothing. It stopped cancer research and a number of other things. Now they are trying the same thing with the Federal judiciary by taking judges who had passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and doing what the Republicans did with the very first nominee of President Obama who came up. They filibustered it--something that had not been done ever in my 40 years here with either Republican or Democratic presidents--ever. This was a judge supported by the most senior Republican in the Senate.

Shortly after that, the Republican leader said his primary goal was for President Obama to fail. Unfortunately for them, he didn't. He was reelected resoundingly. But they have now achieved a partial shutdown of the Federal judiciary by blocking these judges. It is balderdash and pettifoggery.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this is just one more of those judges who passed unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every Republican, every Democrat voted for him. He has been held up and delayed by Republicans who, I am afraid, are trying to do the same to the Federal judiciary they did to the Federal Government by closing it down.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the Chamber to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, with a strong bipartisan vote. It marked the culmination of years of collaboration with survivors and the victim services professionals who work with them every day. It also marked an historic step to protect all victims, regardless of their immigration status, their sexual orientation or their membership in an Indian tribe. As I have said countless times on the floor of this Chamber, ``a victim is a victim is a victim,'' and the bill the Senate passed 1 year ago today was a reflection of that truth.

In passing this historic VAWA reauthorization, the Senate showed that we still can act in a bipartisan way and put crime victims above politics. Senators Crapo and Murkowski were steadfast partners in that effort and listened to the call from thousands of survivors of violence and law enforcement by supporting a fully-inclusive, lifesaving bill.

In the year since its passage, the important changes we made to the Violence Against Women Act have made lives better. The new nondiscrimination provisions included in the law are ensuring that all victims, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, have access to lifesaving programs and cannot be turned away. I was discouraged by the opposition of some to these inclusive provisions last year, especially when the research so clearly underscored the need to update the law to protect the most vulnerable populations. I am proud, however, that after all was said and done, we stayed true to our core value of equal protection and these provisions were enacted.

We also made vital improvements to the law to address the epidemic of violence against Native women. Three out of five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. On some reservations, Native American women are murdered at a rate more than 10 times the national average. Think about those statistics for a minute. They are chilling. Native women are being brutalized and killed at rates that shock the conscience. We simply could not continue to ignore

this ongoing and devastating violence, and I am proud that as a country we said ``enough.''

A key provision in the Leahy-Crapo bill, now law, recognizes tribes' special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian offenders who commit acts of domestic violence against an Indian on tribal land. This provision also faced strong opposition by some but we held firm in the belief that a tribal government should be able to hold accountable those who commit these heinous crimes against its people on its land. I was so proud when voices from around the country--Indian and non-Indian--joined our message that this was a VAWA to protect all victims and refused to give in. With their unified support, we beat back efforts to strip out this critical provision. That is why I was particularly pleased to see the launch of the new pilot project last week in which three tribes--the Umatilla, the Pascua Yaqui, and the Tulalip--will begin to exercise this authority we fought so hard to protect. I ask unanimous consent that a recent Washington Post article highlighting this project be printed in the Record.

Other key provisions of the new law include funding to help law enforcement and victim service providers reduce domestic violence homicides, including in my home State of Vermont. It is leading to more investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual assault crimes and a greater focus on these issues on college campuses. It is also helping eliminate backlogs of untested rape kits to help those victims receive justice and security promptly.

Unfortunately, one provision that was not included in the final VAWA bill was a modest increase in the number of U visas available to immigrant victims of domestic violence and other crimes. These visas are an important law enforcement tool that encourages immigrant victims to report crime, making us all safer. I reluctantly agreed to remove this provision and instead ensured its inclusion in the comprehensive immigration reform bill the Senate passed last year. As the House considers ways to move on that important issue, I urge them to include an increase in U visas so that all victims of domestic violence will be protected.

The Violence Against Women Act 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. There is much we can learn from that effort as we consider legislation that should similarly rise above politics.

After the Senate passed the bill last year, I mentioned a tragic incident that had just occurred. A man shot and killed two women waiting to pass through metal detectors at a courthouse, where he was stalking another victim. Two male police officers also were struck by bullets but were saved by their bulletproof vests. At that time, I urged this body to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program so that more of our law enforcement officials can be protected. Sadly, a year later, that effort remains incomplete.

Before I came to the Senate, I spent years in local law enforcement and have great respect for the men and women who protect us every day. When I hear Senators say that we should not provide Federal assistance, we should not help officers get the protection they need with bulletproof vests, or that we should not help the families of fallen public safety officers, I strongly disagree.

In our Federal system, we can help and when we can, we should help. That is what programs like the Violence Against Women Act are all about. Despite our different political perspectives, most of us came to the Senate with the goal of helping people. We must be able to find common ground to do that. I hope that this body can again come together to protect the American people and support law enforcement like we did 1 year ago today when we passed the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

Madam President, today the Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht Latin American Center released a new, bipartisan public opinion survey on Americans' views about U.S. policy toward Cuba which should be read by every Member of Congress. The findings of this thorough and wide-ranging poll will surprise many. For instance, not only do Floridians--and Cuban-Americans in Florida--favor new policy approaches, but they do so in even larger numbers than do Americans in other regions of the Nation.

It is time--past time--to modernize our policies and the frozen-in- time embargo on Americans' travel and trade with Cuba that have accomplished nothing but to give the Cuban regime a scapegoat for the failures of the Cuban economy. Change will come to Cuba, but our policies have delayed and impeded change. It is time to elevate the voice of a crucial stakeholder: the American people. Thanks to this poll, they are silent no longer.

It is time to recognize that U.S. policy toward Cuba has been unsuccessful in achieving any of its objectives. There is no disagreement among Americans on both sides of the issue about the desire for a government in Cuba that respects individual liberties. We want to see freedom of expression Cuba, just as we want to see American citizen Alan Gross, who has been imprisoned there for more than 4 years, come home. The disagreement is over how best to achieve that.

Just about the only beneficiary of our embargo has been Cuba's current regime.

The poll shows that a solid majority of Americans, including Cuban- Americans, favor a different course.

Trade with Latin America is the fastest growing part of our international commerce. Rather than isolate Cuba with outdated policies, we have isolated ourselves. Our Latin, European and Canadian friends engage with Cuba all that time. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are prohibited from any economic activity on the island.

This new detailed survey paves the way for a policy toward Cuba that is in the national interest of the United States as a whole. That is what the country needs, it is what the American people have made clear they want, and it is the responsibility of the White House and the Congress to act.

Let us have the common sense, and the courage, to finally put an end to the Cold War in our own hemisphere.

In this same spirit of bipartisanship as this public opinion poll, Senator Jeff Flake and I joined together in writing a guest column about the compelling reasons to change these antiquated policies. Our piece appeared today in the Miami Herald. I call it to the attention of the Senate, and I invite other Senators to join in re-examining and changing our self-defeating approach in our relationship with Cuba and the Cuban people. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the National Security Agency continues its indiscriminate collection of a massive number of phone records about Americans under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. I have said over and over again that as a nation we have long needed to have the national conversation about bulk collection that is now underway, and the section 215 program should have been declassified long before it was.

I wish to make very clear, as I have said before, I do not condone the way this or other highly classified programs were disclosed. I am deeply concerned about the potential damage to our intelligence- gathering capabilities, our foreign relationships, and national security.

I am also deeply concerned that one person with a security clearance can wreak this much havoc. According to the New York Times, Edward Snowden accomplished his heist of extraordinarily sensitive information about NSA activities with ``inexpensive and widely available software''; in other words, software that any one of us could get. He didn't even execute a particularly sophisticated breach. He did not, apparently, face a particularly complex technological challenge while removing these sensitive documents from the NSA trove. Yet he pulled off what the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently called ``the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence in our history.''

I continually ask the leaders of our intelligence community: What are you doing to stop this from happening again? I have learned that the NSA has devoted substantial resources to fixing the faults that allowed this to happen, has taken some steps to address them, and has identified a range of other actions that need to be taken. But one has to ask, especially in the wake of the Private Manning leaks, how could the NSA have allowed this to happen in the first place.

I say this not to beat up on the NSA. I know we have highly dedicated, patriotic men and women working there, and I applaud them for their service to their country. But when I hear their leadership ask us to trust that they will keep our information safe and that we should have faith in its internal policies and procedures, one has to ask: Is this accurate?

This is the same NSA that first told us that the section 215 program was essential to national security. They talked in speeches around the country that it thwarted dozens of plots. But then when they were asked questions in a congressional hearing specifically about it, that number went from in the fifties down to possibly one. The primary defense of the NSA's bulk collection program now appears to be the program is more of an insurance policy than anything else. But now even that new defense of the program has been called into question.

The Washington Post has reported that under this program the NSA collects less than 30 percent of domestic phone records. The Wall Street Journal says the number is less than 20 percent. These estimates are consistent with the public copy of the President's Review Group report, which cautioned against placing too much value on this program as a tool to rule out a domestic connection to a terrorist plot; thus, the so-called insurance policy. The Review Group report tells us it is precisely because--although the program is unprecedented in scope--it still covers only a percentage of the total phone metadata held by service providers.

It appears to this Senator that the intelligence community has defended its unprecedented, massive, and indiscriminate bulk collection by arguing that it needs the entire ``haystack'' in order for it to have an effective counterterrorism tool--and yet the American public now finds out they only have 20 to 30 percent of that so-called haystack.

These revelations call even further into question the effectiveness of this program.

Although the program is ongoing, some preliminary and positive changes are underway. Just last week, the Director of National Intelligence announced that the FISA Court has approved procedures under which the government will seek approval by a FISA Court judge before querying these phone records--absent a true, almost instantaneous kind of an emergency. The President has directed the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to develop alternatives to the section 215 phone records program and report back to him at the end of next month. That is progress but only some progress. It is not enough. It is not going to be enough to just reform the government's bulk phone records collection program.

The program, as expensive and extensive as it is, has not proven effective. But beyond that, it is not worth the massive intrusion on the privacy of the American people--of the good, law-abiding men and women in what is supposed to be the greatest democracy on Earth.

Congress should shut it down. We should enact the bipartisan, bicameral USA FREEDOM Act. Then Congress has to examine carefully--and to the extent possible publicly--the security breach that led to these revelations in the first place.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has had a number of hearings on this issue. We are going to continue working on these issues at a hearing this week with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--yet another voice concluding that the section 215 program should not continue. If the NSA is to regain the trust of the American people, it has to spend less time collecting data on innocent Americans and more time keeping our Nation's secrets safe.

I yield the floor.

I will suggest the absence of a quorum. Is time being divided?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Record will indicate that I opened the Senate in my role as President pro tempore, and now the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is in the Chair.

I wish to respond to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada and thank him for what he said.

I was in Montpelier, which is our capital, on Friday, and I spent some time with Governor Peter Shumlin, who did his State of the State message on this subject, as the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said. I talked to him about it. I will call him later this morning and tell him what the leader said. I am also going to wear my hat as chair of the Judiciary Committee and do a hearing on this issue.

Ours is a very special and very precious State, but I think it points out that every State in the Union can face this problem. While on the national news this morning, Governor Shumlin was great and focused the attention of this issue on many States.

I will close by saying to my dear friend from Nevada that I appreciate his comments. He knows how precious Vermont is to me and Governor Shumlin, and I will make sure the Governor knows what he said.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, last week, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a regular oversight hearing. I appreciated the Attorney General's cooperation and willingness to appear before the Committee to discuss a variety of important matters. His testimony reminded us of the Justice Department's central role in carrying out the policy of Congress to support our Nation's law enforcement officers and first responders.

There is one vital program that provides support to the families of fallen law enforcement officers and other first responders, and that is the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program--the PSOB. I am proud to have authored legislation that has expanded and improved the PSOB in important ways so that we honor the sacrifices made by our law enforcement officers and first responders. From my Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act to the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, I have fought to make sure that all of the families who have lost an officer or first responder are honored. We got those laws passed to honor the service of these dedicated first responders and we exercised considerable oversight to make sure the program was administered fairly and efficiently. We wish we didn't need the PSOB program because it is a reminder to Americans about the dangers law enforcement officers face every day. But because they do face those dangers, we need the program. I thank the Attorney General for his leadership and commitment to making this program more responsive to Congressional intent and more effective for grieving families.

Sadly, in 2013, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund reported that 111 law enforcement officers in the United States were killed in the line of duty. This preliminary data reflects an eight percent decrease from the number of officer fatalities in 2012, and amounts to the fewest line of duty deaths in more than five decades. This trend is good news, but Congress must not let up on its effort to increase officer safety. Every single line-of-duty death represents enormous tragedy for the families but also for the communities of these officers.

For decades, Congress has been steadfast in its support of law enforcement officers, and has traditionally maintained policies to increase officer safety and well-being. Until recently, Congress has acted decisively in support of those who dedicate themselves to protecting their communities. As someone who had the privilege to serve in law enforcement for 8 years, I am so proud of what we have done in the past. But now, for some reason, there are some in Congress who do not believe the support of law enforcement officers and first responders can be a Federal responsibility. I disagree. I remain committed to fighting for all of our State and local law enforcement officials.

Last fall the Senate Judiciary Committee reported two important bills to support our Nation's law enforcement officers. Both bills would help protect the lives of law enforcement officers. Both have been approved in this body for immediate passage by every single Democratic Senator. Unfortunately, there are some Republican Senators who continue to obstruct passage of both bills in the Senate. I worry that some are putting ideology ahead of the safety of our law enforcement officers.

More than a decade ago, a Republican Senator from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and I joined forces--again, because both of us had a law enforcement background--and we authored the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. We worked across the aisle to get both Republicans and Democrats to support us, and we created a grant program that has assisted State and local law enforcement agencies in purchasing more than 1 million protective vests.

In fact, Madam President, I remember a police officer who testified before the Judiciary Committee telling us how much he loved law enforcement, but what he loved even more was his family, his parents, his wife, and his children. When he talked, he said: I came within a second of never being with them again. He said: This is what saved me. He pulled up from under the desk a bulletproof vest and we could see the slugs stuck in it. He said: I was ambushed and had a cracked rib, but later that day I saw my family. Without this vest and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, I never would have seen my family again.

Between 2000 and 2010, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act has been reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. Bulletproof vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers. These are officers who put their own lives on the line. They do not stop to say: Wait a minute, how did people vote on the bulletproof vest act? They respond when they are called.

Unfortunately, since 2012, a few Republican Senators have blocked passage of this bill and thwarted the vast majority of senators who want to see this program reauthorized so that it can continue to save the lives of those who keep our communities safe. There is no dispute that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program saves lives. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2012, the Government Accountability Office noted that since 1987, bulletproof vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers. I am disappointed we can't all come together to promote the safety of our Nation's law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. It is our duty to support them and I call on all senators to stand with them and pass this important legislation.

Madam President, I remember walking down the street in a town in Colorado and a police officer in uniform walked up to me and asked: Are you Senator Leahy? I said: I am. He tapped his chest, and you could hear the thunk, thunk of the bulletproof vest, and he said: I want to thank you, and I want to thank Senator Campbell. That is all he said. I was choked up listening to him.

The Judiciary Committee also reported the National Blue Alert Act. This is a bipartisan bill. It passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats. The National Blue Alert Act would create a national alert system to notify all State and Federal law enforcement agencies with critical information when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. I am a proud cosponsor of it. It is sponsored by Senator Cardin and Senator Graham, a key Democrat and Republican. This bill would help apprehend a fugitive suspected of seriously injuring or killing a law enforcement officer and who is fleeing through multiple jurisdictions. It defies common sense that any senator would object to this legislation, which contains no fiscal authorization and is universally supported by law enforcement leaders across the country.

In recent weeks, some Senators have expressed concern for the safety of law enforcement officers in the context of the Senate confirmation process. I do not question that these Senators are as concerned as I am about the safety of law enforcement officers, but I invite those who have expressed concern before the cameras for the well-being of law enforcement officers to come here and support the two bills I have discussed today and end the needless obstruction of this proven commonsense legislation. Do your press conferences, if you want. Say you are in favor of law enforcement. Who is going to be against law enforcement? But then prove it. Let us get these passed.

I am proud that every Democratic member has supported it, and most Republicans do. Those few who are opposed, let us vote. In the coming weeks, as the Senate moves closer to recognizing our Nation's fallen law enforcement officers during National Police Week in May, I intend to come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass these long- stalled bills. If Senators want to oppose them, fine, vote against them, but they ought to be willing to join me on the floor and explain those objections to the thousands of law enforcement officers and families who will soon gather in Washington to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their fellow citizens.

Our law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe. They deserve a Congress that does more than just talk about their service. They deserve protection.

One of the saddest days I ever spent as State's attorney was going to the funeral of a police officer killed in the line of duty. It was a snowy day in Vermont. The snow was falling gently from the sky, and there were several miles of police cars--their blue lights reflected against the white snow. Such a peaceful scene--but not for the family of that police officer. I said to myself that I would do everything I could to protect them, and I appreciate those Republicans and Democrats who have joined me on this. We cannot bring back a fallen officer but we can and we must work together to protect the next one who may come under fire. I call on friends from across the aisle to join all the rest of us, and your fellow Republicans who have already joined, to protect law enforcement officers. Let us immediately reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, and let us pass Senator Cardin and Senator Graham's National Blue Alert Act.

We have many--I know in my office--who have worked on this. I will mention Matt Virkstis, whose background is at the Vermont Law School, that some in this body are well aware of, such as our distinguished Senate Parliamentarian. But I also appreciate all those police officers--and I have no idea what their politics are--who come in to say thank you to those of us who have supported the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program. It is such an easy thing to do. It should be noncontroversial. Let us get back to the days where, when we have something noncontroversial, we just pass it. Together we can honor the service of those who keep us safe.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I see my dear friend is here, so I will not suggest the absence of a quorum. I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, on December 22, 2004, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the beginning of a second International Decade of the World's Indigenous People. As we enter the final year of this international campaign we should remind ourselves of the importance of protecting indigenous populations and take stock of what has

been achieved and what more needs to be done.

I have always believed that as we advance and defend our national interests around the globe we must also fulfill our moral obligations. As chairman or ranking member of the subcommittee that funds the Department of State and foreign operations for over two decades, I have had a unique vantage point from which to watch globalization evolve and test our Nation's commitment to its ideals. As the world's population swells, technology advances, and competition for energy and natural resources intensifies, the rights and needs of indigenous populations are threatened by governments and corporations seeking to exploit the ground on which they have built their lives and preserved their cultures and the wealth beneath it.

This has been the reality for too many indigenous cultures, and it is no surprise that they are among the most vulnerable and disenfranchised populations on Earth. These groups have distinct ways of life and histories, tied to land they have inhabited and protected for thousands of years. But their established roots rarely afford them representation in governments that hide behind laws and regulations proclaiming equal treatment for indigenous populations who have virtually no role in the political process.

Recognizing that indigenous peoples have unique rights and needs that the rest of humanity has a responsibility to protect, several years ago I undertook to create the position of advisor for indigenous peoples' issues at the U.S. Agency for International Development. I am pleased that USAID recently established this office to implement and coordinate a comprehensive, U.S. Government strategy on indigenous peoples, with specific goals, guidelines, benchmarks, and impact assessments, including support for indigenous peoples' organizations.

The selection of Brian Keane to fill this role is an early indicator that it will be addressed proactively. Brian, who has devoted his professional life to these issues, will work to ensure that U.S. Government policies and programs around the world are carried out in a manner that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and responds to their needs. Brian's work in indigenous communities all across the globe, and his advocacy on behalf of indigenous peoples to inform international policy making, has prepared him for his task.

This position must not be merely a symbolic post. From the Amazon rainforest to the Kalahari Desert, indigenous peoples have for centuries faced existential threats due to racism, greed, misguided policies of forced assimilation, and indifference. However, for the surviving groups, the length of their struggle belies the acuteness of the threat. In Brazil, the Guarani people have been driven from their land and are plagued by alcoholism, poverty, and a suicide rate many times the national average, replaced by expanding sugarcane farms.

Anthropologists explain that the loss of land by indigenous groups often leads to social disintegration and economic dependence on the state, as we know only too well from our own experience. We see it in places like Botswana, where the San people, traditionally nomads, have been uprooted from their ancestral lands to make way for diamond mines, forced into settlements, and exposed to HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Their way of life, which the Botswana Government should be protecting, instead is being destroyed.

The circumstances of each indigenous culture, whose members total as many as 400 million people worldwide, differs from continent to continent but they face similar threats. To defend their rights, protect their land, and preserve their cohesiveness, a key policy change is needed. We must commit to honoring the principle of free, prior, and informed consent.

For too long, governments, often including our own, have paid lip service to consulting native populations as a substitute for obtaining their consent for actions that directly affect them. More often than not, such consultations have been cursory or conducted in a manner that divides members of indigenous communities against each other. I am pleased that in 2010 President Obama formally declared our Nation's support for the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, reversing the position that the United States had held since the declaration's adoption in 2007.

While that was a positive step, combatting discrimination against indigenous peoples requires more than policy statements, it requires action. That is why I want to highlight the ongoing threat to these populations and call attention to the new position of advisor for indigenous peoples' issues.

In today's globalized world, ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples is everyone's responsibility. Respect for their rights is not only necessary for their continued survival as distinct cultures but also to help ensure the well-being of the entire planet. Whether we are talking about biodiversity protection, climate change or sustainable development, indigenous peoples have much to offer. Their ancestral knowledge, developed over millennia, has been vital to preserving what is left of the world's critical ecosystems and can play a key role in finding solutions to challenges that humanity is currently facing.

I look forward to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, a high- level plenary meeting of the General Assembly that will take place at the United Nations in September of this year. Its main objective is to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of the rights of indigenous peoples and to pursue the objectives of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The World Conference provides an important chance to give real meaning to the principles expressed in the declaration and is a historic opportunity for the United States to lead the international community by putting forward a concrete plan of action aimed at ensuring that the collective rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent, are recognized and respected.

We all know the Senate and House agriculture leaders unveiled the long-awaited conference report last week for the 2014 farm bill. It has been a long trip getting this far. Every conference committee, of course, has some controversy, but the 2014 farm bill has had more than its fair share of twists and turns--right down to the negotiations on the dairy policy in the fleeting hours--before we, as conferees, signed this conference report. It sounds like the old days of The Perils of Pauline when we had the farm bill tied to the railroad tracks or about to head over the dairy cliff.

Fortunately, we had Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Cochran, and their superb staffs. I am also blessed with my own superb staff: Adrienne Wojciechowski, Kathryn Toomajian, Rebekah Weber, Kara Leene, and Tom Berry, all of whom spent hours away from their families while working on this important bill. We ended with a bipartisan, bicameral farm bill that addresses the needs of every region in the country. Senator Stabenow and I were on the phone or emailing about every hour of the day, night, and weekends from Michigan, Vermont, overseas, and from the Senate, but it worked. Everybody had a chance, Republicans and Democrats alike, to express their views. Now it is time to vote, pass the bill, send it to the President, and give sorely needed certainty to our farmers, our families, and our rural communities.

After all, the 2014 farm bill saves taxpayers $23 billion. It eliminates duplicative programs. It strengthens the toolbox for conserving our natural resources. It gives the farmers some much- needed, long-overdue certainty as they make planting decisions. They don't have the luxury that we seem to give ourselves to wait until the very last second to vote on something. They have to plan months in advance. It provides relief to struggling families, support for rural communities, and investments in a sustainable energy future. Is it a perfect bill? Of course not. No farm bill is. But while there are provisions I would not have preferred, I do believe it has a lot of provisions that will benefit Vermont and the Nation.

I wish the commonsense dairy policies that were passed twice by the full Senate and supported by Republicans and Democrats, by the chair and by the ranking member, and also by the House Committee on Agriculture had not been ambushed at the last hour. As a result, we don't have a market stabilization program--something that was proposed by dairy farmers themselves that would have protected taxpayers from the exorbitant costs and would have insulated dairy farmers and consumers from volatile rollercoastering milk prices.

Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House and some of the very powerful, huge industry figures from out West did not want it.

We do have, because of the constant work of everybody--and I again would praise the chair of our own committee, Senator Stabenow--a solution that while not perfect will help our small dairy farmers protect themselves from poor economic conditions when milk prices plummet or when feed prices skyrocket or, as we have sometimes seen in the worst scenario, when both happen at the same time. The final farm bill includes changes to lower the cost of the Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program for Vermont's small, family dairy farms. It will also discourage large dairies from using this program to flood the markets through overproduction of milk, something that wipes out small family farms.

But the bill is not just about farmers; it is a food bill that supports hungry children and struggling families and it has healthy food initiatives. I am disappointed the final bill contains many cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but the conferees worked together and rejected the deepest cuts to the hunger safety net and the most harmful new conditions which were advocated by an extreme majority in the House, both of which would have undermined the very reasonably offered food assistance. These provisions would have slashed nearly $40 billion from nutrition assistance programs, eliminating the eligibility for millions of Americans, and making it harder for hungry children to receive free school meals.

Frankly, I am fed up with hearing Members, whether in the House or sometimes Members in this body, say: Oh, we can't afford to feed these hungry children when they go to school. These are the same Members who voted for a blank check to go to an unnecessary war in Iraq, something that has cost us $2 trillion, which they did on a credit card. We need to feed children in America so they might actually learn while they are at school, but some say: Oh, we can't afford that. Come on. Feeding those hungry children is an investment in the future of this great Nation.

Some of the demeaning and offensive provisions, such as allowing drug testing of beneficiaries and unrealistic work requirements, were left out. You're telling me that we can have tax-paying, hard-working citizens, who, when factories close, won't be able to feed themselves with supplemental nutrition. We are going to demean them after what they have done for the country? Of course not.

The legislation promotes food security in low-income communities and encourages healthy eating through increased access to fruits and vegetables. That is something we have done in Vermont for years and it is also one of the reasons--that and the fact we cover every child from birth to 18 years old for health care--that Vermont is always listed as either No. 1 or No. 2 of the healthiest States in the Nation.

This legislation also--and again I wish to compliment the Chair on this--continues to share the responsibility to conserve our working farmlands and our natural resources. If we lose these natural resources, we can't make them again. We are not going to get them back. Federally supported crop insurance will ease farmers' exposure when natural disasters strike. It will keep working lands in production. Meanwhile, enlisting farmers to continue the simple conservation practices they are already following will ensure the protection of our wetlands and our sensitive lands.

In a country as diverse as ours, it is no simple task to produce a farm bill that addresses the needs of every region or every industry or every priority. I am proud this is a bill that offers a targeted approach to tackling the needs of each State and agricultural sector, rather than doing it the easy way, which is a one-size-fits-all, which ends up not fitting anybody.

The regional equity program guarantees that no State is left out from receiving conservation resources under the farm bill. Not only Vermont communities but rural America everywhere will be strengthened by a broadband development program, energy efficiency initiatives, and water treatment and distribution loans. Vermont's very beautiful Northeast Kingdom REAP Zone will continue to be a catalyst for growth and progress to help build a resilient rural economy. Organic agriculture is supported through certification cost sharing, stronger enforcement, crop insurance, and funding for organic research. We should promote organics because it is the fastest growing sector in agriculture.

I am also pleased that many of the harmful provisions from the House farm bill were removed during the conference negotiations, including dangerous secrecy provisions and attacks on critical environmental regulations. One that was proposed by an extremely conservative Republican would have actually threatened to limit States rights. What an amazing turn of events. We got rid of all of these.

Bottom line, the Senate and the House have produced a farm bill that at its core is about keeping America strong. Make no mistake, farming is part of our national security. Look at the number of nations in this world that would give anything to be able to feed themselves and have food left over to export. We are more secure as a nation because we can do that.

This farm bill will boost the economy, will create jobs, will offer support for the hungry, conserve our national resources, improve our energy security, and stand up for our country's families. I am proud to have signed the conference report for another farm bill that will support Americans today and into America's future. I look forward to one of my few duties I get to perform after this bill passes: I will sign the bill as President pro tempore after the Speaker signs it. And I know from what he has said to all of us, the President will then sign it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Vermont is home to hundreds of world-class small businesses, each of which dots our economic landscape with their unique and often award-winning offerings. Our reputation for quality has made the ``Vermont brand'' one that is valued and sought after by consumers across the Nation--and increasingly also across the globe. One burgeoning industry in Vermont is that of craft beer. In fact, the State is becoming almost as well known for its craft beers as it is for its maple syrup.

One such successful small brewery, the Hill Farmstead Brewery, was featured in the January 18, 2014, edition of the New York Times. After a planned expansion next year, the brewery's owner, Shaun Hill, plans to cap production at 150,000 gallons per year. His successful business model, and highly sought after brew, as the article states, ``offers lessons in how limiting production can bring success.''

Vermont's small-State appeal attracts business owners large and small. The Hill Farmstead Brewery is just one example of the successes Vermont's economy boast. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of ``Craft Beer, the (Very) Limited Edition,'' from the January 18 New York Times be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my two dear friends, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Alabama. They have been friends of mine for decades, and we have traveled and conspired together--always conspiring for the good of the country, of course. We have shared our thoughts, our philosophy, and our plans, and because we have joined together, we have better legislation.

I want to add my voice to those who have spoken in support of the Omnibus appropriations bill. I spoke about it earlier this week, so I won't repeat others, but I want the American people to understand the importance of what we are doing.

Only Chairwoman Mikulski could have said it as well as she did. This compromised bill represents the end of--and hopefully for a long time-- ``shutdown, slowdown, slamdown politics.'' If I spoke for an hour, I would not say it as well as the senior Senator from Maryland did. It shows that the people here want to govern. When they have had enough of political stunts and are no longer intimidated by extremists, they can work together to get it done.

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Lowey made it possible for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to do what we all do if we are given the chance. Democrats and Republicans come together and we forge agreements.

Two days ago I spoke about the portions of this omnibus bill that fund the Department of State and foreign operations. But I also know-- and I can say this as the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee--the bill also provides funding for many vital domestic programs that have suffered some very painful cuts in recent years. It provides increased funding for public health, including mental health. It is going to increase the National Institutes of Health budget by $1 billion.

In Vermont, local community health centers are essential for rural families. This bill includes nearly $700 million more for these health centers nationwide. I know how important they are. I remember during my first term in the Senate helping to start one of our first community health centers in the tiny county of Grand Isle, with a beautiful archipelago of violets in Northern Lake Champlain. We also have Head Start Programs. These are some of the hardest hit by sequestration and the bill will help rebuild these programs by investing nearly $1 billion.

The bill invests $194 million more in the Women, Infants, and Children Program, providing nearly 90,000 more mothers and children with nutrition assistance. Talk about something that has a rebounding effect in this country. We all know a hungry child going to school is not going to learn, and they

are not going to be as productive a member of society later on. None of us in this Chamber goes hungry. No Senator goes hungry except by choice, but a lot of children and a lot of infants go hungry. Now, 90,000 more can be given nutrition assistance.

Many Americans are struggling to pay for college, and this bill maintains funding for the Pell Grant Program and increases funding for TRIO and GEAR Up Programs that help low-income and first-generation students get a college education. Many of these programs reach Vermonters through the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation. I am pleased this bill includes investment in this and similar nonprofits around the country.

The omnibus includes funding for programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act for grants to rural areas, for transitional housing, for sexual assault services, for legal assistance for victims, and support for Native American victims.

I remember how we joined together in a bipartisan way to pass the Violence Against Women Act, and when they wanted to diminish it in the House of Representatives, some very brave Democrats and Republicans stood and said: No, let's pass the bill the Senate passed. We added a number of things, including Native American victims--something that even some of the previous supporters of the bill were going to take out. We kept it in.

The bill raises the cap on the Crime Victims Fund by $15 million, which is a historic high. It means more money for victims assistance grants at the State and local levels. How I wish we had such money when I was a prosecutor so we could help victims of crime.

It also makes a lifesaving investment in the bill the former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I wrote, the bulletproof vest program, to protect police officers and other first responders. Every year we hear of police officers whose lives have been saved because of the bulletproof vest program.

We provide increases for homeless assistance grants and the Low- Income Energy Assistance Program. We preserve funding for Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones--something extremely important in the basically rural State of Vermont.

The omnibus also lifts the pay freeze impacting thousands of Federal workers in Vermont and millions across the country and all 50 of our States.

The bill makes strong investments to support our National Guard. I was the cochair of the National Guard Caucus, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, who will agree with me on how important that investment is. It overturns a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act that would have reduced cost-of-living adjustments for medically retired servicemembers and survivor benefit plan recipients. It paves the way for Congress to repeal the reductions for all impacted military retirees.

This bill is not exactly what I might have written, what Chairwoman Mikulski would have written, what any one of us would have written if we could write it alone. But after years and years of gridlock on appropriations, we wrote a bill that can pass. So there are compromises. There are programs that are not funded at the levels many of us wanted, including some provisions important to Vermonters.

I am disappointed that because of limited budget caps we were unable to make larger investments in the Byrne JAG Program and the juvenile justice program, which continue to face steep cuts year after year.

I am disappointed the omnibus includes authorizing language we have been debating as part of the ongoing farm bill negotiation. This antifarmer policy rider will tie the hands of the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration and is an unfortunate case of legislating on behalf of powerful corporations while leaving our family farmers out in the cold.

But I would say that even on the things I would have wanted to include, and many of us would want to include, the alternative was another continuing resolution and more sequestration, which, without question, would have been far worse, especially for programs that I support and I believe the distinguished Presiding Officer supports and most of us support.

So we have taken an important step back from the destructive politics of the past few years. Let's hope it is only the first step. Let's hope we can go on from here to make progress on other important issues the American people sent us to address.

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

Mr. President, with the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:45 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between Senators Reed of Rhode Island and Durbin; further, that the time from 4:45 p.m. until 5:15 p.m. be controlled by the Republican leader or designee; that at 5:15 p.m. there be 15 minutes equally divided between Senators Mikulski and Shelby or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m. today the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur; that if cloture is invoked, the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, all postcloture time be yielded back, and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to concur; that if the motion to concur is agreed to, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 74; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I tell the distinguished Presiding Officer, he can tell by all the various clauses of that why we Senators are merely constitutional impediments to our staff who write it up, and why I held it in my hand to read it and make sure it was done right.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, almost five decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed the original Voting Rights Act into law. At the signing, he spoke eloquently about the central purpose of the law. He said:

This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only

purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are

denied the right to vote because of their color. This law

will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no

American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which

no American, true to our principles, can deny.

A lot has changed since 1965 and much progress has been made, but 7 years ago the Senate and House examined whether racial discrimination in voting was still a problem that required a Federal solution. After a long series of hearings in both Chambers and based upon a mountain of evidence,

Democrats and Republicans came together to conclude that racial discrimination in voting is still a problem and the protections that voters have had under the Voting Rights Act were still needed. Yet, last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act when it held that the coverage provision of section 5 was unconstitutional because it was not sufficiently based on current conditions. In doing so, the Court made clear that Congress could update the law to reinstitute the protections of section 5 coverage if it were based on more recent conduct.

Today, I am pleased to announce that we are responding to the Court's decision by introducing a bill that helps reinvigorate the most vital protections of the act. Through months of cooperation, negotiation, and compromise, Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers and I have agreed on a bipartisan and bicameral proposal to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act that were weakened by the Supreme Court's decision last summer. Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to ensure that no American would be denied their constitutional right to vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color. We believe that this is a strong bipartisan bill that accomplishes this goal and that every Member of Congress can support.

Under our bipartisan bill, all States and jurisdictions are eligible for section 5 protections under a new coverage formula, which is based on repeated voting rights violations in the last 15 years. This coverage provision is based solely on a State's or local jurisdiction's recent voting rights record. Significantly, the 15-year period ``rolls'' or continuously moves to keep up with ``current conditions,'' as the Supreme Court stated should be a basis for any coverage provision. If a State that is covered establishes a clean record moving forward, it will fall out of coverage. In addition, the existing bailout provision would still be available for States or jurisdictions that can establish that they had a clean record in a 10-year span. These provisions ensure that the coverage provision is not over- inclusive because jurisdictions that have not repeatedly violated the voting rights of its constituents can come out from under preclearance requirements.

Our bill would also improve the Voting Rights Act to allow our Federal courts to bail-in the worst actors for preclearance. Current law permits States or jurisdictions to be bailed in only for intentional voting rights violations, but to ensure that the worst discrimination in voting is captured, the bill would amend the act to allow States or jurisdictions to be bailed in for results-based violations, where the effect of a particular voting measure is to deny an individual his or her right to vote.

In recognition that voters need to be aware of changes in laws affecting their right to vote, the bill provides for greater transparency in elections. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis once observed, and in this instance, the additional sunlight will protect voters from discrimination. The transparency provisions provide for public notice and information in three areas. The first part requires public notice of late breaking changes in Federal elections. The second part requires information on polling place resource allocation for Federal elections. The third part requires information on changes to electoral districts, including demographic information, to prevent racial gerrymandering, impermissible redistricting, and infringement on minority voters. The last part requires this information for Federal, State, and local elections because the most impermissible conduct oftentimes occurs in State and local elections.

Finally, our bill revises the preliminary injunction standard for voting rights actions. The principle behind this part of the proposal is the recognition that when voting rights are at stake, obtaining relief after the election has already concluded is too late to vindicate the individuals' voting rights. We recognize that there will be cases where there is a special need for immediate, preliminary relief where the plaintiff can establish that the voting measure is likely to be discriminatory.

This proposal is a bipartisan effort to provide a narrow fix to address the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision to ensure that all Americans are protected from racial discrimination in voting. I am confident and hopeful that the Congress can work together as a body-- not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans--to ensure that we root out all voter discrimination with a strong and reinvigorated Voting Rights Act.

I am confident we can do this because protecting voting rights has always been a bipartisan effort. In 1965 President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. That law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. In the Senate the vote was 79 to 18. In the House the vote was 328 to 74. In the four times since it was reauthorized, the support for the law has only increased. In fact, when President George W. Bush signed the most recent reauthorization in 2006, the vote in the Senate was 98 to 0 and the vote in the House was 390 to 33. Too often there is gridlock in Congress, but when it comes to the Voting Rights Act, there is almost unanimous agreement on the principle that no American should be denied his or her right to vote or to participate in our democracy.

My hope is that we can continue this legacy of bipartisanship on the issue of voting rights. As we prepare to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day on Monday, we should remember the words of Dr. King, who, in a powerful speech about the right to vote, said:

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the

right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my

mind--it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic

citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact--I can

only submit to the edict of others. So our most urgent

request to the president of the United States and every

member of Congress is to give us the right to vote.

I believe that the bipartisan bill we are introducing today honors the spirit of those words. I thank Senators Durbin and Coons for working with me and I look forward to working with all Senators on this important legislation.

Mr. President, almost five decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed the original Voting Rights Act into law. At the signing, he spoke eloquently about the central purpose of the law. He said:

This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only

purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are

denied the right to vote because of their color. This law

will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no

American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which

no American, true to our principles, can deny.

A lot has changed since 1965 and much progress has been made, but 7 years ago the Senate and House examined whether racial discrimination in voting was still a problem that required a Federal solution. After a long series of hearings in both Chambers and based upon a mountain of evidence,

Democrats and Republicans came together to conclude that racial discrimination in voting is still a problem and the protections that voters have had under the Voting Rights Act were still needed. Yet, last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act when it held that the coverage provision of section 5 was unconstitutional because it was not sufficiently based on current conditions. In doing so, the Court made clear that Congress could update the law to reinstitute the protections of section 5 coverage if it were based on more recent conduct.

Today, I am pleased to announce that we are responding to the Court's decision by introducing a bill that helps reinvigorate the most vital protections of the act. Through months of cooperation, negotiation, and compromise, Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers and I have agreed on a bipartisan and bicameral proposal to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act that were weakened by the Supreme Court's decision last summer. Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to ensure that no American would be denied their constitutional right to vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color. We believe that this is a strong bipartisan bill that accomplishes this goal and that every Member of Congress can support.

Under our bipartisan bill, all States and jurisdictions are eligible for section 5 protections under a new coverage formula, which is based on repeated voting rights violations in the last 15 years. This coverage provision is based solely on a State's or local jurisdiction's recent voting rights record. Significantly, the 15-year period ``rolls'' or continuously moves to keep up with ``current conditions,'' as the Supreme Court stated should be a basis for any coverage provision. If a State that is covered establishes a clean record moving forward, it will fall out of coverage. In addition, the existing bailout provision would still be available for States or jurisdictions that can establish that they had a clean record in a 10-year span. These provisions ensure that the coverage provision is not over- inclusive because jurisdictions that have not repeatedly violated the voting rights of its constituents can come out from under preclearance requirements.

Our bill would also improve the Voting Rights Act to allow our Federal courts to bail-in the worst actors for preclearance. Current law permits States or jurisdictions to be bailed in only for intentional voting rights violations, but to ensure that the worst discrimination in voting is captured, the bill would amend the act to allow States or jurisdictions to be bailed in for results-based violations, where the effect of a particular voting measure is to deny an individual his or her right to vote.

In recognition that voters need to be aware of changes in laws affecting their right to vote, the bill provides for greater transparency in elections. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis once observed, and in this instance, the additional sunlight will protect voters from discrimination. The transparency provisions provide for public notice and information in three areas. The first part requires public notice of late breaking changes in Federal elections. The second part requires information on polling place resource allocation for Federal elections. The third part requires information on changes to electoral districts, including demographic information, to prevent racial gerrymandering, impermissible redistricting, and infringement on minority voters. The last part requires this information for Federal, State, and local elections because the most impermissible conduct oftentimes occurs in State and local elections.

Finally, our bill revises the preliminary injunction standard for voting rights actions. The principle behind this part of the proposal is the recognition that when voting rights are at stake, obtaining relief after the election has already concluded is too late to vindicate the individuals' voting rights. We recognize that there will be cases where there is a special need for immediate, preliminary relief where the plaintiff can establish that the voting measure is likely to be discriminatory.

This proposal is a bipartisan effort to provide a narrow fix to address the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision to ensure that all Americans are protected from racial discrimination in voting. I am confident and hopeful that the Congress can work together as a body-- not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans--to ensure that we root out all voter discrimination with a strong and reinvigorated Voting Rights Act.

I am confident we can do this because protecting voting rights has always been a bipartisan effort. In 1965 President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. That law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. In the Senate the vote was 79 to 18. In the House the vote was 328 to 74. In the four times since it was reauthorized, the support for the law has only increased. In fact, when President George W. Bush signed the most recent reauthorization in 2006, the vote in the Senate was 98 to 0 and the vote in the House was 390 to 33. Too often there is gridlock in Congress, but when it comes to the Voting Rights Act, there is almost unanimous agreement on the principle that no American should be denied his or her right to vote or to participate in our democracy.

My hope is that we can continue this legacy of bipartisanship on the issue of voting rights. As we prepare to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day on Monday, we should remember the words of Dr. King, who, in a powerful speech about the right to vote, said:

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the

right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my

mind--it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic

citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact--I can

only submit to the edict of others. So our most urgent

request to the president of the United States and every

member of Congress is to give us the right to vote.

I believe that the bipartisan bill we are introducing today honors the spirit of those words. I thank Senators Durbin and Coons for working with me and I look forward to working with all Senators on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I should first note I am pleased to see the Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to share the podium with him today.

I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of my remarks, the Chair recognize the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.

Mr. President, after many long days and nights of four- party negotiations across a dozen subcommittees over the past month, on Sunday night the Appropriations Committee completed work on the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

I commend Chairwoman Mikulski, without whom this would not have been possible. It was, above all, her relentless pursuit of this goal and her unmatched ability to rally her subcommittee troops together to get us to this point.

I would also note that she was helped by some of the most hard working members of the Senate staff one can imagine. I want to especially commend Tim Rieser of my staff, and Janet Stormes and Nikole Manatt who worked with him. I could not keep track of the number of times I received emails or calls at midnight or 1 a.m. from Tim as we worked through all the difficult parts of this bill.

And it could not have been done without the cooperation of my friend from Alabama Senator Shelby, the committee's ranking member, who knew how important it was to pass appropriations bills rather than put the government on autopilot.

This means there will be no sequester in fiscal year 2014, and there will not be another disastrous government shutdown that achieved nothing, disrupted the lives of millions of American families, and cost the taxpayers some $24 billion and private industry tens of billions of dollars more.

As Chairman of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who brings a level of energy and knowledge to our subcommittee few can match. He and