Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a unique Vermont asset that recently gained national attention: the granite industry. Due largely to its versatility, high quality and immense quantity, granite proved integral to the early economic development of my home State and continues to play a vital role today.

The people of Barre, VT, have been mining granite since the 1800s, when it was learned that the unusually high quality of the stone found in the town's hillsides was in high demand. This discovery had local and global implications. Granite from the Rock of Ages quarry in Barre was supplied to help construct columns in the Vermont State House that still stand today. Additionally, the art of stone carving that the granite industry created attracted skilled immigrants to Vermont from throughout Europe and Canada. In fact, both my grandfathers were stone carvers in Vermont.

With its museum, tours, and even a sandblasting experience, the Rock of Ages quarry has expanded its offerings to serve as an educational and historical site, attracting visitors from around the world. Recently, the Timberland Boot Company visited the quarry for a photo shoot. They became so enamored by the community and its people that they ended up highlighting the area in a new line of footwear, noting that it was influenced by ``a 150-year-old granite industry that transformed the tiny New England town into an international destination for commerce and art.''

I am very proud of the people of Barre for embracing and preserving the important history and culture the granite industry brought to Vermont. The recognition that the Timberland Boot Company gave to Rock of Ages is well deserved.

I ask that an article printed in The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus on November 26, 2013, ``Marketers find Barre history just the right fit,'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, in what I hope is a sign of things to come, today, I expect the Senate to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act. The result of the long-awaited budget conference--one that had long been requested by Chairwoman Murray but never agreed to by Senate Republicans--the agreement has found some common ground and reflects a shared commitment to work for the American people--something in short supply in Congress these days.

The budget deal we are considering today is a true compromise. I believe it would be difficult to find any Member of Congress who fully embraces every aspect of this agreement. In spite of that, there is broad, bipartisan support for the bill, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House late last week and the bipartisan vote by which cloture was invoked here in the Senate. There is bipartisan support for the overall goal of ending this manufactured budget stalemate that we currently face.

The Bipartisan Budget Act will provide us with the our top-line spending levels for the remainder of this fiscal year and next and, most importantly, will prevent the full force of a second round of sequestration's indiscriminate and devastating cuts. This is welcome news for nearly every American who has seen how devastating the sequester has been for their communities and for those who have anxiously awaited a second round of deeper, more painful cuts. With agencies facing budgets that just simply could not meet their basic obligations to the public and to the Nation's priorities and with their coffers to insulate programs and prevent furloughs and layoffs exhausted, allowing the sequester to lengthen and deepen truly would have been debilitating and would have stunted our ongoing economic recovery.

While this is not the budget I would have written and while it is paid for in a number of ways with which I simply disagree, we are at a juncture at which we cannot allow the goal of perfection to bring on another body blow to the Nation and to our economy. One thing I have heard clearly from Vermonters is that we must replace the sequester. While not perfect, this deal will in fact save jobs, reduce unnecessary furloughs, and will not prioritize defense spending at the cost of our education and housing programs as so many other budget proposals have in the past.

I was proud to support a Senate budget and Senate appropriations bills that would fully replace sequestration by closing corporate tax loopholes and making responsible cuts. I am disappointed that this deal does not more closely follow the framework or provide the funding levels supported earlier by the Senate. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I welcome the fact that this deal will mean that we will be able to get back to the work of passing annual appropriations bills through regular order, ending the practice of putting these budget decisions on autopilot through continuing resolutions. The annual appropriations process provides us with the opportunity to make much needed adjustments to agency priorities and budgets. This budget also allows a return to regular order while keeping the promises we have made to seniors. It protects Social Security and Medicare benefits from the harmful cuts included in the earlier Ryan Budget.

But there certainly are areas in which this deal is lacking. I had hoped any budget agreement we considered would include an extension of unemployment insurance that will end later this month for 1.3 million Americans. It is disappointing that it does not. Unemployment insurance is a vital component of our ongoing recovery and a lifeline to millions of Americans as they search for work in this challenging economy.

I hope the bipartisan spirit that is the basis of this agreement can continue into the new year, and I hope that when the Senate, early in the new year, considers legislation to restore this lifeline of unemployment insurance, Senators and Representatives will support an extension.

Unfortunately, my disappointment is not reserved only for what was not included in the deal but also for ways

this budget pays to replace sequestration.

A provision included in this agreement could negatively impact not- for-profit student loan servicers around the country by removing $3.1 billion in mandatory funding and the requirement that the Department of Education work with these organizations service direct Federal loans. The nonprofit Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, has been servicing Federal loans and chalking up high borrower satisfaction rate while doing this work. I appreciate Chairwoman Murray's clarification that this provision is not aimed at ending existing contracts like VSAC's, but I am concerned that the funding used to service these loans will now need to be found elsewhere. Our discretionary budget is stretched thin as it is, and this provision will arrive on the doorstep of an already overburdened Education Department.

Even though we have reduced the deficit by $2.4 trillion since the start of fiscal year 2011, with nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction coming from $1.8 trillion in spending, there is ongoing pressure to find additional ways to put money toward deficit reduction. It concerns me that this budget proposal will devote $23 billion toward deficit reduction--barely a drop in the bucket of the larger picture-- by forcing those who have served in our military, future Federal employees, and airline passengers--but not the airlines--to pay for it.

Under this proposal, many Active-Duty military retirees are targeted for Federal spending cuts by a reduction to their cost-of-living adjustment until they reach age 62. This is a bait-and-switch maneuver that will cost them thousands of dollars in compensation that they were promised and have earned--many of them while bravely serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That just doesn't sit right with me. This provision, which saves only $6 billion, is set to be phased in over several years until full implementation in 2017. Unfortunately, these pension reforms will not be grandfathered in for military retirees, as will be done for Federal employees--the only positive component of the measure addressing Federal worker pensions in this legislation. It is my hope that the delay of its application will give Congress the time to responsibly replace the savings from these changes to military retiree compensation.

I am disappointed that the only deal that could receive bipartisan support does not ask oil companies to sacrifice their tax breaks but instead asks for sacrifices from our mititary retirees and hard-working Federal workforce. And instead of closing tax loopholes benefiting private jet owners and companies hiding profits overseas, we are forced to find savings through cuts to our conservation programs.

I have always believed that getting our fiscal house in order must go hand in hand with policies that promote economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class. Without this deal, sequestration would bring to a halt economic growth and threaten to undo the progress we have made. Further sequestration undoubtedly would increase furloughs and eliminate jobs. Sequestration would devastate housing programs keeping roofs over families this winter and gut programs supporting the education of our children, lifesaving technology for law enforcers, and services for crime victims. Sequestration is a blunt, harmful, and mindless instrument. The Bipartisan Budget Act, while not perfect, is the lifeline we need to prevent that bleak sequestration future from becoming a reality.

It is time for us to move beyond these manufactured budget crises and focus on the many remaining challenges that matter most to the American people.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I could have 1 minute now on a matter of some importance.

The White House has released a report that was prepared by the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The message is very clear. The message to the NSA is now coming from every branch of government, from every corner of our Nation: NSA, you have gone too far. The bulk collection of Americans' data by the U.S. Government has to end.

The review group came to the same conclusion that I have about the utility of the section 215 phone records program, the same conclusion that Judge Leon found just the other day, calling it unconstitutional. They said the section 215 program was ``not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.''

They say what many of us have been saying, that just because we can collect massive amounts of data doesn't mean we should do so.

The report states:

Although we might be safer if the government had ready

access to a massive storehouse of information about every

detail of our lives, the impact of such a program on the

quality of life and on individual freedom would simply be too

great.

Senator Lee, I, and others have legislation to curtail this. I think for the sake of our Nation and the sake of our Constitution we should.

In October, I introduced with Senator Lee the USA FREEDOM Act--a bipartisan and bicameral bill that ends the dragnet collection of Americans' phone records and recalibrates the government's surveillance authorities. This is commonsense legislation that has broad support from legislators across the political spectrum, civil liberties groups, and technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Yahoo.

I welcome the report and call on the President to immediately consider implementing the recommendations that can be achieved without legislation. I have invited the members of the President's Review Group to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, and look forward to discussing their important recommendations.

Mr. President, if I may join in this colloquy, I am glad for the clarification from the senior Senator from Washington and am pleased to know it is her legislative intent for the Department of Education to continue to use not-for-profit servicers and maintain their existing contracts and that not-for-profit servicers will be permitted to compete in the future for additional accounts. Like other not-for-profits around the country, the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, VSAC, has provided counseling services and low-cost loans to students and Vermonters for more than 40 years. Since then, VSAC has worked hard to establish and maintain strong and longstanding working relationships with Vermont's higher education institutions, as well as K-12 schools, to provide outreach programs critical to the economic vitality of Vermont. In their new role servicing Federal loans, VSAC has consistently received praise from their customers and scored high in customer satisfaction surveys. In fact,

when Congress switched to direct lending we ensured that not-for-profit servicers would continue to service Federal loans because of the superior customer service experience that not-for-profits servicers have consistently provided. I am glad that Congress is continuing to recognize the importance of not-for-profit servicers in our communities and intends to allow for their continued role of servicing Federal loans and helping more students gain access to college and more students to complete their degrees.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the confirmation of Jeh Johnson to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Johnson's distinguished career in public service, including his service as a Federal prosecutor and as general counsel of the Department of Defense, will suit him well as he takes on this new and very challenging responsibility. I look forward to inviting Mr. Johnson to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing in the new year, which he has committed to do. Mr. Johnson will oversee many issues within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, not the least of which is Federal immigration policy.

I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Johnson recently and discuss some of the issues that have been of interest to me over the last several years. I encouraged him to continue to support the exceptional work U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas has done to make USCIS a better, stronger agency. In particular, I encouraged Mr. Johnson to build upon Director Mayorkas' work to strengthen and improve the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which is a successful, job-creating immigration program that has transformed parts of Vermont and other communities across the country. I look forward to working with Mr. Johnson and Director Mayorkas following his confirmation as Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security to continue the partnership the Senate Judiciary Committee developed with USCIS to make the improvements necessary to maintain the highest standards of integrity in this important program, and to sustain it as a significant economic engine for the United States.

I relayed to Mr. Johnson my concerns about Border Patrol checkpoints in the interior of the country, such as the one that the previous administration implemented and operated nearly 100 miles south of the Canadian border on Interstate 91 in Vermont. Over the past several years, I have heard from many Vermonters who find the idea of a Federal checkpoint 100 miles from the Canadian border, deep into the State of Vermont, entirely inconsistent with Vermont values and an overbearing Federal presence that creates an environment susceptible to racial profiling and the needless harassment of law abiding citizens. I continue to have serious questions about the effectiveness of checkpoints such as these, especially when weighed against the significant intrusion into the privacy of Americans.

I also discussed with Mr. Johnson my concerns related to the treatment of Americans returning to the United States, in particular the practice of CBP officials conducting warrantless searches of Americans' persons and belongings, including conducting forensic searches of electronic devices. These searches within the border zone are not subject to the usual protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to Americans. Recent CBP activities have raised serious questions about whether Federal officials are circumventing the protections of the Fourth Amendment by conducting opportunistic searches on individuals when those officials know they will be reentering the United States. As I wrote in a letter to the current acting secretary, such authority must be used with great restraint. I look forward to continuing my discussions about these important issues with Mr. Johnson.

Finally, I will seek to work with Mr. Johnson to address the overbroad material support bar in our immigration law. It has resulted in people, including vulnerable refugees, being unfairly barred from the United States based solely on de minimus commercial or social conduct that has negligible connection to the support of terrorism. One example involves an individual who sold flowers to members of a terrorist group, and is now considered to

have provided ``material support'' to terrorism. That simply does not make sense and must be changed. As I have with his predecessors, I will urge Mr. Johnson to address this unjust situation as soon as possible after he takes office.

I congratulate Jeh Johnson on his confirmation and look forward to working with him as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, today I am proud to recognize the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the ``Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act'' which occurred this past Saturday. Back in 2003, I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to pass this legislation to improve the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits-- PSOB--program by allowing families of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes to qualify for Federal survivor benefits. I am proud to mark the 10-year anniversary of this important program.

I first want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical responders for the work they do for the American public each and every day. This legislation, like the Public Safety Officers Benefits program, is for them. It is Congress' recognition of the importance of their service to their communities and to the Nation.

Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to a crime scene or emergency situation. They are often the first line of defense in a natural disaster or national security emergency. They are among our most courageous and dedicated public servants. I applaud their efforts in responding to more than 240 million emergency calls each year--whether those calls involve a fire, crime, medical emergency, natural disaster, or act of terrorism--without hesitation. They act with a steadfast commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens and, sadly, sometimes lose their own lives in the protection of their communities.

Each year, hundreds of public safety officers nationwide lose their lives and thousands more are injured while performing their duties. And while these benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all these fallen heroes deserve this financial support from the Federal government.

The PSOB program was established in 1976 to authorize a one-time financial payment to the eligible survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers who die in the line of duty. While there had been various efforts over the years to improve the program leading up to 2003, the benefits did not extend to officers suffering a fatal heart attack or stroke from a work-related, non-traumatic injury, such as stress or strain from the job.

The Hometown Heroes Act of 2003 expanded PSOB coverage to ensure that the survivors of public safety officers who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while on duty--regardless of whether a traumatic injury is present at the time of the heart attack or stroke--are eligible to receive financial benefits. Ensuring public safety is dangerous, grueling, and stressful work. A first responder's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke exponentially increases when he or she puts on heavy equipment and rushes into a burning building or gets into a shootout with dangerous criminals. Since enactment of the Hometown Heroes law, the Department of Justice has approved 373 claims. This is 373 families who have received this important support in the face of a tragedy. The families of these brave public servants deserve coverage under the PSOB program and I am grateful that Congress was able to pass legislation to make sure the law covered these situations.

Over the past few years I have increasingly sought ways to improve the PSOB program. Last year, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, I was successful in adding to that legislation the Dale Long Act. The inclusion of this amendment fixed coverage gaps in the Federal PSOB program by extending benefits to private, non- emergency medical services--EMS--volunteers and personnel. In Vermont alone, this change covers an estimated 1,200 EMS personnel for the program. This legislation also streamlined what had been an unwieldy and unnecessarily long appeals process for claimants, clarified the list of eligible survivor recipients, and eliminated an artificial distinction under current law to include vascular ruptures as a type of injury that would make a public safety officer's survivors qualified for Hometown Heroes benefits. Since 2012, as a result of the Dale Long Act's enactment, an additional 23 Hometown Heroes cases have been approved.

Finally, I want to recognize the outstanding work of Director Denise O'Donnell and her staff at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Under Director O'Donnell's leadership, her dedicated staff has put into place significant reforms and improvements to the program that have increased efficiency, transparency, and communication with the survivors of fallen first responders with pending claims. They are putting to good use the new statutory provisions that were enacted as part of the Dale Long Act provisions that make the program more cost effective and easier for administrators and claimants to find resolution. As a former prosecutor, Director O'Donnell understands the importance of this program to first responders across the country and she has worked very hard to listen to their concerns and act on them. I know the staff members within the PSOB program office recognize the solemnity and importance of the work they do and recognize that each case represents a family that has endured a great sacrifice. They carry out their duties with the respect these cases deserve and I thank them as they continue to carry out the promise Congress made to America's first responders over 30 years ago.

Public safety officers are part of the bedrock of our Nation. We must continue to recognize their hard work and selfless dedication to communities across this country and ensure that they and their families have the protections they need and most certainly deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2013, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, tonight we will vote on the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On Tuesday, we were finally able to invoke cloture on her nomination, after it had been unjustifiably filibustered by Senate Republicans for nearly 3 months after being favorably voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The DC Circuit is often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation and should be operating at full strength. We are finally taking another step towards making this Court operate at full strength for the American people.

Nina Pillard is an accomplished litigator whose work includes 9 Supreme Court oral arguments, and briefs in more than 25 Supreme Court cases. She drafted the Federal Government's brief in United States v. Virginia, which after a 7 to 1 decision by the Supreme Court made history by opening the Virginia Military Institute's doors to female students and expanded educational opportunity for women across the country. Since then, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend VMI and go on to serve our country.

She has not only stood up for equal opportunities for women, but for men as well. In Nevada v. Hibbs, Ms. Pillard successfully represented a male employee of the State of Nevada who was fired when he tried to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for his sick wife. In a 6 to 3 opinion authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled for her client, recognizing

that the law protects both men and women in their caregiving roles within the family.

She has also worked at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, an office that advises on the most complex constitutional issues facing the executive branch. And prior to that, Ms. Pillard litigated numerous civil rights cases as an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. At Georgetown Law, Ms. Pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil procedure, and co-directs the law school's Supreme Court Institute. She has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible ranking--Unanimously Well Qualified--to serve as a Federal appellate judge on the DC Circuit.

Today, however, I have heard some unfortunate and unfair attacks on this fine woman. I have heard comments that she would be ``the most left wing judge'' in U.S. history; that she has extreme views on abortion and religious liberty; and that she would ``rubber stamp'' the most radical legislative and regulatory proposals. One might expect these outrageous accusations to come from right wing fringe groups, but to hear some of these outlandish accusations on the Senate floor is unfortunate.

So let me clear the record. Nina Pillard is one of the finest nominees we have had before this body. On the issue of abortion, Republicans have cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to try to paint her as someone she is not. The truth is that taken as a whole, her writings have focused on bridging the gap between pro-life and pro-choice advocates by ``finding common ground for ways to reduce reliance on abortion.''

More importantly, I cannot ignore the double standard of certain Senators on the issue of abortion. In 2002, the Senate unanimously confirmed President Bush's nomination of Michael McConnell to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote. Professor McConnell argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and urged the Supreme Court to overturn it. He applauded a Federal judge for refusing to convict anti-abortion protestors, even though they had clearly violated the law, because of his sympathetic reading of the defendants' motives.

Similarly, in 2002, the Senate confirmed William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit, even though he called Roe v. Wade the ``worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.'' Another President Bush nominee, J. Leon Holmes, was confirmed to the Federal district court in Arkansas, even though he had argued that abortion should be banned even in case of rape because pregnancy from rape is as uncommon as ``snowfall in Miami.'' He had also written that wives should be submissive to their husbands. He was not filibustered. He was confirmed.

Each of these judicial nominees stated under oath in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that they could set aside their personal beliefs and would interpret the law consistent with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. They were confirmed. Nina Pillard testified under the same oath that, ``A judge's opinions and views should have no role in interpreting the Constitution.'' Are we to believe that only judicial nominees who do not support a woman's access to abortion services are able to set aside their personal views to be fair and impartial judges? I cannot help but notice the glaring double standard that is imposed on Nina Pillard.

On the issue of religious liberty, Senate Republicans continue to misrepresent comments Ms. Pillard made about the possible outcome of a Supreme Court case to suggest she is hostile to religious freedom. In a 2011 briefing to educate the press on legal issues in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, she described the issue in the case, identified what was difficult about it, and offered a prediction of how the Court might resolve it. Her prediction turned out to be wrong.

If Senators, who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, were held accountable every time they incorrectly predicted the outcome of a Supreme Court case, I am not sure how many of us would be left. Ultimately, she has testified that if confirmed she would uphold the Supreme Court's precedent on the issue.

The suggestion that Ms. Pillard will be ``the most left-wing judge in the history'' is simply outlandish hyperbole, as demonstrated by the bipartisan support she has received. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy under President George W. Bush, wrote in a letter of support for her nomination that ``Based on our long and varied professional experience together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity. . . Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments. . . She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the federal appellate judge-- qualities that make her well prepared to take on the work of a D.C. Federal Judge.''

Former FBI Director and Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas William Sessions has written that her ``rare combination of experience, both defending and advising government officials, and representing individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, would be especially valuable in informing her responsibilities as a judge.''

Nina Pillard has also received letters of support from 30 former members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including 8 retired generals; 25 former Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials; 40 Supreme Court practitioners, including Laurence Tribe and Carter Phillips, among many others.

Despite having filled nearly half of law school classrooms for the last 20 years, women are grossly underrepresented on our Federal courts. We need women on the Federal bench. A vote to end this filibuster is a vote to break yet another barrier and move in the historic direction of having our Federal appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of the country.

I commend President Obama on his nominations of highly qualified women like Nina Pillard, Patricia Millett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. In each of these women, the Senate has had the opportunity to vote to confirm women practicing at the pinnacle of the legal profession. Once the Senate confirmed Justice Kagan, the highest court in the land had more women than ever before serving on its bench. With the confirmation and appointment of Nina Pillard, the same will be true for what many consider to be the second highest court in the land, the DC Circuit because she will be the fifth active female judge on the court. Never before have five women jurists actively served on that court at one time. I look forward to that moment and to further increasing the diversity of our Federal bench.

I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this outstanding nominee. This Nation would be better off for Nina Pillard serving as a judge on the DC Circuit.

Today, the Senate will also vote on the nominations of Elizabeth A. Wolford, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York; Landya B. McCafferty, of New Hampshire, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire; Brian Morris, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana; and Susan P. Watters, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana.

Senate Republicans have continued to abuse the filibuster and required cloture to confirm all four of these noncontroversial district court nominees. All four of these nominees were reported unanimously by voice vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee. They all have the support of their home State senators. With the filibuster of these four district court nominees, Senate Republicans have now filibustered 24 of President Obama's district court nominees. Not a single district court nominee was filibustered under President Bush's 8 years in office. I hope Senate Republicans come around so that we can work together to meet the needs of our Federal judiciary so that the American people can have the justice system they deserve.

Mr. President, I commend the Senate for confirming Judge Patricia M. Wald to be a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, ``PCLOB''. The Senate previously confirmed Judge Wald to this post on August 2, 2012. The President renominated Judge Wald to this position in March, and the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination without objection months ago. Like many other nominees, her confirmation has been held up on the floor for months by Senate Republicans.

During her tenure on this important oversight board, Judge Wald has served with great professionalism and dedication. And last month, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that the President can bestow.

For the past several months, our Nation has been engaged in a national debate about the ever-growing need for limits on the government's surveillance powers. The House and the Senate are considering bipartisan legislation to rein in those expansive powers, in an effort to better protect Americans' privacy and to increase transparency and oversight. The PCLOB is also expected to issue an important report on the government's surveillance programs to the President and Congress.

Today's confirmation vote will ensure that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board remains at full strength as the board continues this work to safeguard our constitutional rights. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike have supported the work of this non-partisan board. I commend the Senate for confirming this well qualified nominee, so that the PCLOB can continue to carry out its important responsibilities.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will finally have the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of Patricia Millett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Over the course of her 25-year legal career, Ms. Millett has risen through the ranks of government and private practice to earn a place among the best appellate practitioners in the country. She has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. She worked in the Justice Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations. She is unquestionably qualified and deserves to be confirmed without further delay so she can get to work for the American people.

Patricia Millett's career mirrors that of the last DC Circuit judge to occupy the very seat to which she is nominated--that of John Roberts, Jr. I voted for his confirmation to both the DC Circuit and later to the Supreme Court. I knew at the time of those votes that I would not agree with every decision he would make on the bench, but I voted for him because of his temperament and his excellent reputation as a lawyer. John Roberts was confirmed unanimously to the DC Circuit on the day the Judiciary Committee completed consideration of his nomination and reported it to the Senate--at a time when the caseload of the DC Circuit by any measure was lower than it is today. If only Senate Republicans had been willing to apply the same standard for Ms. Millett. Instead, they decided to filibuster her nomination even though they had promised to only filibuster nominations under ``extraordinary circumstances''. If those Senators had been true to their word, I do not believe we would have reached the tipping point on the use of the filibuster.

By refusing to allow a vote for any existing vacancy on the DC Circuit, Republicans took their determined obstruction to an unprecedented level. As the senior most Senator serving today, I approach changes to the tradition and history of the Senate with great reluctance. I have always believed in the Senate's unique protection of the minority party. I have held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out; that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of more than 310 million Americans would do the right thing.

Now that the Senate has changed its precedents to overcome the escalating obstruction of some, I hope reasonable Republicans will join us in restoring the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties. I hope this will include a vote to confirm Patricia Millett to the DC Circuit.

Ms. Millett is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. She has engaged in significant community service and committed herself to pro bono work. She helps the neediest among us, volunteering through her church to prepare meals for the homeless and serving regularly as an overnight monitor at a local shelter.

Through her legal work, Ms. Millett has earned broad bipartisan support. This includes the support of Peter Keisler, Carter Phillips, Kenneth Starr, Theodore Olson, and Paul Clement, and a bipartisan group of 110 appellate practitioners, as well as 37 Deputy Solicitors General and Assistants to the Solicitor General from both Republican and Democratic administrations. She is supported by the national president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, and many others.

Patricia Millett's service to our Nation is not limited to her legal career or her humanitarianism. She is part of our Nation's storied military family, a family that we have called on repeatedly in the past decade. Her husband is a retired Navy reservist, and as a military spouse, Ms. Millett is part of our Nation's military fabric. She understands personally what we ask of our servicemembers and their families. At the height of Patricia Millett's legal career, her husband received orders to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For nearly a year, she balanced Supreme Court arguments and the demands of being a single parent all while reassuring her children that their father would return home safe.

But not only is Ms. Millett committed to her own military family, she has helped to secure employment protections for members of our National Guard and Reserve through her pro bono legal work. In a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, Ms. Millett represented an Army Reservist who was fired, in part, because some of his co-workers did not like his military absences. The successful arguments that Ms. Millett helped craft have made it easier for all members of our Reserve and National Guard to protect their rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

Patricia Millett embodies what we ask our military families to do on behalf of their country. Military spouses juggle all the challenges that every American family faces--but often with the added pressure of deployments and extended separations. I want to thank all the military spouses who are in the Senate gallery today and those watching on C- SPAN who have worked tirelessly to support the nomination of ``one of their own''. We should recognize, honor and support our military families not just through words, but through meaningful action. A vote to confirm Patricia Millett is that meaningful action.

Today the Senate finally has the opportunity to vote for the confirmation of Patricia Millett. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this outstanding nominee.

Mr. President, today, for the second time in a month, we are debating whether to allow a confirmation vote on the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Yesterday, we were finally able to vote on the nomination of Patricia Millett after many months of being filibustered by Senate Republicans. I am glad we are making more progress today on another exceptional nominee.

The DC Circuit is often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation and should be operating at full strength. Today we will take a step towards making this court operate at full strength for the American people.

In late November, a bipartisan majority of Senators voted in favor of moving to an up-or-down vote on Nina Pillard's nomination, but we fell short by three votes. The same efforts to remove the Republican blockade of this President's nominees to fill vacancies on the DC Circuit that allowed the Senate to confirm Patricia Millett earlier this week will similarly allow the Senate to move forward on Nina Pillard's nomination so she can be confirmed and get to work for the American people.

Nina Pillard is an accomplished litigator whose work includes nine Supreme Court oral arguments, and briefs in more than 25 Supreme Court cases. She drafted the Federal Government's brief in United States v. Virginia, which after a 7-1 decision by the Supreme Court made history by opening the Virginia Military Institute's doors to female students and expanded educational opportunity for women across the country. Since then, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend VMI and go on to serve our country.

Ms. Pillard has not only stood for equal opportunities for women but for men as well. In Nevada v. Hibbs, Ms. Pillard successfully represented a male employee of the State of Nevada who was fired when he tried to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for his sick wife. In a 6-3 opinion authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled for her client, recognizing that the law protects both men and women in their caregiving roles within the family.

She has also worked at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, an office that advises on the most complex constitutional issues facing the executive branch. And prior to that, Ms. Pillard litigated numerous civil rights cases as an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. At Georgetown Law, Ms. Pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil procedure, and co-directs the law school's Supreme Court Institute.

She has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible ranking--Unanimously Well Qualified--to serve as a Federal appellate judge on the DC Circuit. She also has significant bipartisan support. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy under President George W. Bush, has written that ``Based on our long and varied professional experience together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity . . . Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments . . . She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the federal appellate judge--qualities that make her well prepared to take on the work of a DC Federal Judge.''

Former FBI Director and Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas William Sessions has written that her ``rare combination of experience, both defending and advising government officials, and representing individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, would be especially valuable in informing her responsibilities as a judge.''

Nina Pillard has also received letters of support from 30 former members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including 8 retired generals; 25 former Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials; 40 Supreme Court practitioners, including Laurence Tribe and Carter Phillips, among many others.

Despite having filled nearly half of law school classrooms for the last 20 years, women are grossly underrepresented on our Federal courts. We

need women on the Federal bench. A vote to end this filibuster is a vote to break yet another barrier and move in the historic direction of having our Federal appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of the country.

I commend President Obama on his nominations of highly qualified women such as Nina Pillard, Patricia Millett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. In each of these women, the Senate has had the opportunity to vote to confirm women practicing at the pinnacle of the legal profession. Once the Senate confirmed Justice Kagan, the highest court in the land had more women than ever before serving on its bench. With the confirmation and appointment of Nina Pillard, the same will be true for what many consider to be the second highest court in the land, the DC Circuit, because she will be the fifth active female judge on the court. Never before have five women jurists actively served on that court at one time. I look forward to that moment and to further increasing the diversity of our federal bench.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of ending the filibuster on this outstanding nominee. This Nation would be better off for Nina Pillard serving as a judge on the DC Circuit.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, tonight the Senate passed by unanimous consent a clean extension of the authority the Supreme Court Police use to protect Supreme Court Justices, their employees, and guests when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. I have worked with my counterparts in the House for months to move this extension without amendments because that authority is set to expire at the end of this month. Last month, the House voted by an overwhelming majority of 399 to 3 to pass this bipartisan bill, which extends the Supreme Court Police's authority to protect Supreme Court Justices, their staff, and official guests off Supreme Court grounds through 2019. Congress has provided this authority since the 1980s, to ensure the continued safety of our Supreme Court Justices and their employees.

Threats to the safety of Supreme Court Justices are a threat to our democracy. In light of recent attacks of Justices off the grounds of the Supreme Court, it was all the more imperative that we pass this extension without delay. I look forward to President Obama signing this bill into law and thank the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Representatives Coble and Watt, as well as Representatives Conyers, Marino, and Holding for working with me to ensure enactment of this extension.

The Senate also passed by unanimous consent a bipartisan bill to reorganize Mississippi's Southern District from five divisions to four divisions, which was recommended by Chief Judge Louis Guirola of the Southern District of Mississippi. This realignment will allow the Southern District to absorb the counties formerly served by a now- closed courthouse in Meridian, and the District will be able to better serve the needs of litigants, jurors, the bar, and the general public.

This commonsense piece of legislation promotes efficiency and saves money in the Southern District of Mississippi. I thank Representatives Coble and Watt for sponsoring this important improvement and look forward to its swift enaction.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on December 3, 2013, the House of Representatives passed a 10-year reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act. This law prohibits firearms that are undetectable by widely deployed security screening technologies such as x-ray and metal detectors. These are the standard technologies used by law enforcement officials to protect the public in State and Federal government buildings, courthouses, airports, and a host of other public spaces and events and these are the same technologies that protect the public and elected officials in the Capitol and congressional office buildings, where so many congressional staff and members of the public work and participate in the democratic process in an open and accessible environment. It is not difficult to appreciate why lethal weapons capable of evading such detection cause significant concern for the law enforcement community. This law has been the widely supported policy of Congress since 1988, when the legislation was signed by President Reagan. Ten years ago, Senator Hatch and I came together to reauthorize this law in 2003.

While today's legislation is an important step to reauthorize this law, we have more work to do. Law enforcement experts have urged Congress to make modest changes necessary to close a loophole that allows an individual who makes a firearm using 3D printing technology to easily evade the reach of the current law. I support those changes in order to better protect the public and update the current law in a responsible way.

Unfortunately, these recommendations have been met by Republican objections. As the expiration of this law has crept closer and the issue has gained the greater attention of law enforcement officials and Members of Congress, I worked in the Senate to find bipartisan support for a reauthorization of the law that would include these needed updates. I was disappointed that no Republican senator was willing to engage in a joint effort to responsibly update the law.

Today, a functioning, all-plastic, undetectable gun manufactured in the home using publicly available technology is not theoretical; it is reality. Unfortunately, the legislation we pass today fails to provide law enforcement officials with the best tools possible to keep pace with current and rapidly developing technology. This reauthorization does give Congress time to consider necessary updates to the law that law enforcement experts believe are critical to close the loopholes that have been exposed by emerging technologies.

I hope that as we go forward, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will closely examine the improvements we need to make to this law and will act responsibly in addressing them. Given this law's long history of bipartisan support, we should work together to carefully consider the recommendations that law enforcement experts have made to make this law better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am not on the Armed Services Committee, although I was 38 years ago. But I would think that if there are any two people in this body who could work out a program to get the votes set up and voted on it is the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would hope and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to the Democratic and Republican leaders of this Committee, because I think they can probably work it out.

There has been a lot of discussion about the major rules change that occurred here today. In my capacity as President pro tempore, I was presiding during that time and did not get a chance to speak. I want to say a few things.

In the four decades I have served here, I have been here with both Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have had moments of crisis when I worried that our political differences outweighed the Senate's common responsibility. Yet we were always able to steer our way out of trouble. Majorities of both parties have come and gone, but I have never lost faith in our ability to see ourselves through the divisions and come together to do what is best for the Nation.

I have always believed in the Senate's unique protection of the minority party, even when Democrats held a majority in the Senate. When the minority has stood in the way of progress, I have defended their rights and held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out, that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 310 million Americans would do the right thing. That is why I have always looked skeptically at efforts to change the Senate rules.

But in the past 5 years it has been discouraging. Ever since President Obama was elected, Senate Republicans have changed the tradition of the Senate, with escalating obstruction of nominations. They crossed the line from the use of the Senate rules to abuse of the Senate rules. In fact, the same abuse recently, and needlessly, shut down our government at a cost of billions of dollars to the taxpayers and billions of dollars to the private sector. I think it is a real threat to the independent, judicial branch of government.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am worried that the Republican obstruction is damaging our ability to fulfill the Senate's unique constitutional responsibility of advice and consent to ensure that the judicial branch has the judges it needs to do its job.

Republicans have used these unprecedented filibusters--and they are unprecedented--more than at any time that I have served here. They have obstructed President Obama from appointing to the Federal bench even nominations that were supported by Republican Senators from the State from where the nominee came. They have forced cloture to end filibusters on 34 nominees, far more than we ever saw during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these nominees were, by any standard, noncontroversial and ultimately were confirmed overwhelmingly. In fact, Republican

obstruction has left the Federal judiciary with 90 or more vacancies during the past 5 years.

Take for example the Republican filibuster of a judicial nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Robert Bacharach last year, despite the support of the Republican Senators from Oklahoma. This marked a new and damaging milestone. Never before had the Senate filibustered and refused to vote on a judicial nominee with such strong bipartisan support, and who was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with virtually unanimous support. Republicans continued to block Senate action on the Bacharach nomination through the end of last Congress and forced his nomination to be returned without action to the President. There is no good reason--none--why Robert Bacharach was not confirmed to serve the people of Oklahoma and the Tenth Circuit as a Federal judge last year. He was finally confirmed this year unanimously.

Republicans last year also filibustered William Kayatta, another consensus circuit nominee who had the support of both Republican home State Senators. Like Judge Bacharach, Mr. Kayatta received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary's highest possible rating and had strong bipartisan support and unimpeachable credentials. The same also applies to Richard Taranto, whose nomination was returned to the President at the end of last year after Republicans blocked action on his nomination to a vacancy on the Federal Circuit for more than eight months, despite no opposition in the Senate and despite the support of both Paul Clement and the late Robert Bork. Neither of these nominees faced any real opposition. Yet Republicans stalled both of them through the end of last Congress and forced their nomination to be returned without action to the President. They were both confirmed this year with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed, but as soon as President Obama took office Republicans reversed course. It struck me, because the very first--the very first--nominee to the Federal bench that President Obama sent here was filibustered. Judge Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit. President Obama reached out to the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator Dick Lugar, to select a nominee he supported. Yet, Senate Republicans filibustered his nomination, requiring a cloture vote before his nomination could be confirmed after a delay of seven months.

It is almost a case of saying: Okay, Mr. President, you think you got elected? We are going to show you who is boss. We are going to treat you differently than all of the Presidents before you.

This has never been done before, to filibuster the President's very first nominee. Somehow this President is going to be told he is different than other Presidents.

Senate Republicans have obstructed and delayed nearly every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 14 of them. They abused the Senate's practices and procedures to delay confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months, before he was confirmed by voice vote. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months before she was confirmed 71 to 21. Senate Republicans used procedural tactics to delay for months the Senate confirmation of nominations with the strong support of Republican home State Senators--including Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit; Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit; Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit; Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit; Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit; Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit; Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit; and Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit.

The results are clear and devastating. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees during his first term in office to 132 days for President Obama's nominees during his first term in office. This is the result of Republican obstruction and abuse of Senate rules. In most cases, Senate Republicans have delayed and stalled without explanation. How do you explain the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit who was ultimately confirmed 99 to 0? And how else do you explain the needless obstruction of Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, who was filibustered for four months before he was confirmed 98 to 0?

In 2012, Senate Republicans refused to consent to a vote on a single circuit court nominee until the majority leader filed cloture, even for nominees with home State Republican support like Adalberto Jordan of Florida--strongly supported by Senator Rubio--and Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona, strongly supported by Senator Kyl. They blocked the Senate from voting on a single circuit court nominee nominated by President Obama last year. Since 1980, the only other Presidential election year in which there were no circuit nominees confirmed who was nominated that same year was in 1996, when Senate Republicans shut down the process against President Clinton's circuit nominees.

In the 8 years George W. Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. That was over 8 years. In just 5 years, 42 of President Obama's district court nominees have faced opposition. The majority leader had to file cloture on 20 of them. Federal district court judges are the trial court judges who hear cases from litigants across the country and preside over Federal criminal trials, applying the law to facts and helping settle legal disputes. They handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts and are critical to making sure our courts remain available to provide a fair hearing for all Americans. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best, and have been confirmed quickly with that support. Never before in the Senate's history have we seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Many are needlessly stalled and then confirmed virtually unanimously with no explanation for the obstruction. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-partisan positions.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee I have always acted fairly and consistently whether the President has been a Democrat or a Republican. I have not filibustered nominees with bipartisan support. I have steadfastly protected the rights of the minority and I have done so despite criticism from Democrats. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home State Senators. I will put my record of consistent fairness up against that of any chairman and never acted as some Republican chairmen have acted in blatantly disregarding evenhanded practices to ram through the ideological nominations of President George W. Bush.

Regrettably, the answer to my fairness and to my commitment to protecting the rights of the minority has been unprecedented and meritless obstruction. Even though President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, Republicans in the Senate have done away with regular order, imposing unnecessary and damaging delays. Until 2009, judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support were generally confirmed quickly. That has changed, with district nominations taking over four times longer and circuit court nominees over seven times longer than it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Until 2009, we observed regular order and usually confirmed four to six nominees per week, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Since then, Senate Republicans have refused to clear the calendar and slowed us down to a snail's pace. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it

was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009--Republicans have required cloture to consider even those nominees later confirmed unanimously.

This obstruction was not merely a product of extreme partisanship in a Presidential election year--it has been a constant and across the board practice since President Obama took office. At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans have deliberately refused to vote on several judicial nominees just to take up more time the following year. At the end of 2009 Republicans denied 10 nominations pending on the Executive Calendar a vote. The following year, it took 9 months for the Senate to take action on 8 of them. At the end of 2010 and 2011, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar, taking up nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm them. Last year they blocked 11 judicial nominees from votes, and refused to expedite consideration of others who already had hearings.

The effects of this obstruction have been clear. When the Senate adjourned last year, Senate Republicans had blocked more than 40 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees from being confirmed in his first term. That obstruction has led to a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies persisting for over four years.

This year, Senate Republicans reached a new depth of pure partisanship. They have decided to shut down the confirmation process altogether for an entire court--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, even though there are three vacancies on that court. Senate Republicans attempt to justify their opposition to filling any of the three vacancies on the DC Circuit with an argument that the court's caseload does not warrant the appointments.

We all know that this ploy is a transparent attempt to prevent a Democratic President from appointing judges to this important court. We all know what has happened here in the DC Circuit. In 2003, the Senate unanimously confirmed John Roberts by voice vote as the 9th judge on the DC Circuit at a time when the caseload was lower than it is today. He was confirmed unanimously. No Democrat, no Republican opposed him. Not a single Senate Republican raised any concerns about whether the caseload warranted his confirmation and during the Bush administration they voted to confirm four judges to the DC Circuit--giving the court a total of 11 judges in active service.

Today there are only eight judges on the court; yet, when Patricia Millett was nominated to that exact same seat by President Obama, a woman with just as strong qualifications as John Roberts--they both had great qualifications--she was filibustered. Some say we should not call that a double standard. Well, I am not sure what else one might call it. We also should not be comparing the DC Circuit's caseload with that of other circuits, as Republicans have recently done. The DC Circuit is often understood to be the second most important court in the land because of the complex administrative law cases that it handles. The court reviews complicated decisions and rulemakings of many Federal agencies, and in recent years has handled some of the most important terrorism and enemy combatant and detention cases since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Comparing the DC Circuit's caseload to other circuits is a false comparison, and those who are attempting to make this comparison are not being fully forthcoming with the American public. Years ago, one of the senior most Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee said this:

[C]omparing workloads in the DC Circuit to that of other

circuits is, to a large extent, a pointless exercise. There

is little dispute that the DC Circuit's docket is, by far,

the most complex and time consuming in the Nation.

Now, however, that same Senator has engaged in the precise pointless exercise he once railed against.

This is an unprecedented level of obstruction. I have seen substantive arguments mounted against judicial nominees, but I have never seen a full blockade against every single nominee to a particular court, regardless of the individual's qualifications. Republicans attempted to take this type of hardline stance with certain executive positions last year and earlier this year, when they refused to allow a vote for any nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Rather than representing substantive opposition to these individual nominees, this obstruction was a partisan attempt to sabotage and eviscerate these agencies which protect consumers and American workers. I have heard some call this tactic ``nullification.'' It is as if the Republicans have decided that the President did not actually win the election in 2008, and was not re-elected in 2012.

Senate Republicans backed off this radical and unprecedented hardline stance on executive nominees earlier this year, but they have shown no signs of doing the same with the DC Circuit. And it is not for lack of qualified nominees. This year, Senate Republicans filibustered the nominations of three exceptionally qualified women: Caitlin Halligan, Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard. Earlier this week Republicans filibustered another stellar nominee to this court, Judge Robert Wilkins.

I am a lawyer. I have tried cases in Federal courts. I have argued cases in Federal courts of appeal. I always went into those courts knowing I could look at that Federal judge and say: It doesn't make any difference whether I am a Democrat or a Republican, whether I represent the plaintiff or the defendant; this is an impartial court.

If we play political games with our Federal judiciary, how long are the American people going to trust the impartiality of our Federal courts? At what point do these games start making people think maybe this is not an independent judiciary? If that day comes, the United States will have given up one of its greatest strengths.

Let's go back to voting on judges based on their merit--and not on whether they were nominated by a Democratic President or a Republican President. Let's stop holding President Obama to a different standard than any President before him--certainly no President since I have been in the Senate, and I began with President Gerald Ford.

This obstruction is not just bad for the Senate, it is also a disaster for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. In short, as a result of Republican obstruction of nominees, the Senate has failed to do its job for the courts and for the American people, and failed to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. That is why the Senate today was faced with what to do to overcome this abuse and what action to take to restore this body's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the American people.

Mr. President, next week, Americans across the country will gather with family and friends to celebrate a national tradition, Thanksgiving. Some will give thanks for their good fortune or health over the past year, while others will simply be thankful to see their loved ones together in one place. What most of us will take for granted, however, is that we will have a meal to eat and have a home in which to gather. Far too many Americans will not have that luxury. During this time of reflection, and in

honor of National Homelessness and Hunger Awareness week, I would like to take a moment to speak about those who are all too often overlooked, the homeless and the hungry.

Each and every day, millions of Americans face the uncertainty of when their next meal will be or when they will be able to feed their family. On any given night, a disgraceful number of Americans face the uncertainty of not knowing where they will sleep. Sadly, many have nowhere to turn. These Americans live in both large States and small, in urban centers, and small, rural towns across the country. These are men, women, and children who live, work, and attend schools in our communities without the basic needs of food security and a place to call home.

There are nearly 3,000 Vermonters who do not have a roof over their head each night. And while organizations like the Committee on Temporary Shelter, COTS, Spectrum Youth and Family Services, and the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth do their best to provide emergency shelter, services, and housing for people who are homeless or marginally housed, the need far outweighs their capacity.

Nationally, we have made some progress to address this issue and have seen the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness and homeless veterans significantly decrease. Unfortunately, the face of homelessness is changing, and the number of families facing homelessness has dramatically increased. Shelters are seeing an unprecedented number of families. Many of these families have at least one adult who is working full time, but who does not earn enough to afford a place to live. Of the 4,244 people who used emergency shelters in Vermont last year, 952 of them were children. We know that children who experience homelessness suffer from high rates of anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and below-average school performance. Regrettably, shelter workers are beginning to see the first signs of generational homelessness. This is unacceptable, and we owe it to those children and families to do more.

Across the country nearly 1 in 6 people faces hunger on a daily basis; 1 in 5 children are living in a household with food insecurity. In a Nation where $165 billion worth of food goes to waste each year, it is clear that there is enough food to feed everyone in America. We need to do a better job of getting that food to those who need it most. For the more than 84,000 Vermonters facing food insecurity, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, known as 3Squares in Vermont, is a lifeline helping to feed their families. SNAP is our single most important anti-hunger program providing assistance to nearly 49 million Americans in need of help to afford food. With so many Americans still struggling to put food on the table, it is deplorable that some in Congress continue to call for reductions to food assistance as a way to solve our Nation's deficit problems.

No one can deny the effects of hunger on Americans, especially children. Children who live in food insecure homes are at a greater risk of developmental delays, poor academic performance, nutrient deficiencies, obesity and depression. Yet participation in food assistance programs turns these statistics on their head. Federal nutrition programs have been shown to decrease the risk a child will develop health problems and is associated with decreases in the incidence of child abuse. Children from families who receive food stamps have a higher achievement in math and reading and have improved behavior, social interactions and diet quality than children who go without.

Two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the disabled, or the elderly who cannot be expected to work. The remaining participants in the program are subject to rigorous work requirements in order to receive continuing benefits. While SNAP offers crucial support to a family's grocery expenses, the benefits far from cover a family's food expenses. With a benefit average of about $1.25 per person, per meal, it is understandable that families typically fall short on benefits by the middle of the month.

Across the Nation, wages have remained flat as prices for every day essentials like food, heat, and especially housing, continue to rise. At the same time, as more families find themselves in need of some help, the programs that provide that safety net have been devastated by cuts over the past several years and continue to be targeted for even further reductions in the name of protecting tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil companies.

The budget decisions made in Congress have real impacts for real people. Reductions to funding for the organizations providing emergency shelter, or programs that build much needed affordable housing, means more Americans face housing insecurity. Cuts to the SNAP program means benefits will run out earlier in the month and even though donations to food banks and soup kitchens are down, they will see a record number of families looking for a little help to just make it to the next month.

As the budget conferees discuss a path forward, it is essential that they find a common sense compromise to replace sequestration and put an end to the deficit reduction on the backs of those most in need. There are just too many people that are one unforeseen expense away from a desperate financial situation that could result in them losing the roof over their head, and the means to feed their family. We can all agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the reality that children living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world do not know when they will get their next meal and do not have a safe place to sleep at night.

Every child in America deserves a fair shot. This is why I have championed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Programs authorized by the RHYA have successfully helped countless runaway and homeless youth and their families in Vermont and across the nation over the last 30 years, but we can and must do more. We must recognize the importance of investing in our Nation's youth, and direct resources where they are needed most. Programs authorized by the RHYA expired at the end of September. I hope that we can work to reauthorize and improve RHYA by addressing the needs of children in the most vulnerable communities, and provide services that meet the needs of youth who identify as LGBT and the young victims of trafficking or exploitation. We need more training and resources to help our grantees meet the needs of young victims, and that is what the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides.

There are families that are having difficulty making ends meet. We must pass a farm bill that does not include the extreme House cuts to SNAP benefits at levels 10 times as high as the bipartisan Senate bill and nearly twice as high as the House's original bill. Those cuts would mean that each year, an average of three million people will be kicked off food assistance, and hundreds of thousands of children will lose access to school means. I hope that the bipartisan efforts of the Senate to pass a responsible farm bill will help produce a good farm bill out of conference that does not contain these deep and damaging cuts to food assistance.

We owe it to the American people to put politics aside and especially during this time of year, to give a voice to those who are most in need, to those often overlooked and marginalized and to start making meaningful progress to eliminating homelessness and hunger in this country.

Mr. President, earlier this year, as many others were, I was shocked when the Department of Defense released a stunning report about the increase in sexual assault among the branches of the Armed Forces. Sexual assault in the military is neither a new issue, nor an uncommon one. It has been a problem for decades. Its occurrence is a stain on the honor of our military and Nation that we must all work to eliminate. Military bases are where our troops are supposed to be safe, and to know that they risk being in harm's way not only when deployed but among their fellow servicemembers as well is horrible.

I have worked hard to bring greater attention to the ongoing problem of sexual violence in our communities and am proud of the significant improvements we made in the recent reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year. It is time we bring the same level of attention to the crisis on our military bases.

While this epidemic is not representative of the vast majority of our service men and women, who serve honorably and conduct themselves commensurate with our expectations of those in uniform, it is also not isolated to just a handful of bad actors. We can no longer ignore that the time is long overdue for meaningful changes to help end sexual assault and harassment in the ranks of our Armed Forces. We must work together to protect victims and provide appropriate help and support and to ensure that those responsible for such crimes are held accountable.

Just as our civilian justice system is the envy of the world, our military justice system must also meet that standard. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act, and why I support her amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA.

In last year's Defense authorization bill, Congress included provisions meant to address sexual assault in the military. That legislation required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe standards for victim support and mandated an independent review and assessment of the systems used to adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses.

When the Department of Defense released its fiscal year 2012 report on sexual assault in the military earlier this year, its findings were jarring, and for many myself included they were infuriating. To make matters worse, the problem seems only to be growing.

The status quo for how we deal with sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact in the military is untenable. If we are serious about curing this problem, we need to get serious about making fundamental changes to how it is addressed. We cannot expect that by doing the same thing over and over again we will achieve different results.

I supported Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's proposals this summer to limit a commander's authority to overturn major court martial verdicts, among other reforms to the system. I am pleased that the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee included this key provision, as well as other measures to address the so-called ``good soldier'' defense and to require commanders to immediately report alleged sexual assaults to the investigative office, in this year's Defense authorization bill.

Senator Gillibrand's proposal is another move in the right direction, taking these reforms a step further by removing the determination to bring sexual assault cases from the chain of command and giving that discretion to an experienced military prosecutor. This is a commonsense solution, and I commend her for her clear-eyed and energetic leadership on this issue.

Senator McCaskill's proposal also includes strong protections for victims so that the process of getting justice for these crimes does not revictimize those who come forward to report them. I believe Senator McCaskill's proposal also is a step in the right direction to encourage victims to come forward and report these crimes. Our Nation's troops should not have to fear sexual assault, and if they are victims, they certainly should not fear any stigma after bringing to light unwanted sexual contact.

Surely we can all agree that we have an obligation to ensure that our men and women in uniform are protected from the threats we can control. Holding perpetrators of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact accountable and caring for, supporting, and protecting those victims is within our control. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting reforms that will fundamentally change the way we approach this issue in order to achieve better results.