Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act along with Senators Cochran, Casey, and Moran. This bill is an effort I have worked on with former Senator Richard Lugar for many years and I am happy to continue the effort on behalf of hungry families nationwide this Congress.

In the wake of our Nation's economic recession, the demand on food banks, church food pantries, and soup kitchens has increased significantly. According to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture, over 50 million Americans lived in food insecure households in 2011. The same study found that households with children reported food insecurity at a much higher rate than households without children. In fact, in Vermont alone, over 12,000 children rely on food from food shelves each month.

Despite the increased demand for donated food, it is estimated that between 25 and 40 percent of the food that is produced, grown, and transported in the United States will never be consumed. This contributes to the 70 billion pounds of fit and wholesome food that are sent to landfills in the United States each year.

This bill would address this troubling trend by giving greater incentives to all businesses to donate food to non-profit organizations that feed the hungry. The current tax code allows corporations to receive a special deduction for donations to food banks, but it excludes many other small businesses such as farmers, ranchers, and restaurant owners from the same tax incentive. Unfortunately, these businesses often find it more cost effective to throw away food than to donate it to those in need.

I am pleased beginning in 2006, Congress temporarily extended this tax incentive to most businesses, and most recently extended the provision through the end of 2013. After the provision was enacted, in the restaurant industry alone we saw a 137 percent increase in the pounds of food donated. The Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act would make this provision permanent, and would extend the deduction to farmers who often have large amounts of fresh food to donate.

This bipartisan legislation is supported by numerous organizations including Feeding America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufactures Association, the National Restaurant Association, the Vermont Food Bank, and Hunger Free Vermont. I hope as this Congress considers comprehensive tax legislation in the future this measure is included. We must do more to ensure that no one in America goes hungry, and increasing the amount of food available to food banks is a critical step toward meeting that goal.

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

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Madam President, I wish to speak about the Comey nomination.

James Comey, Jr., should be confirmed to be our next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I feel it should be done without delay. Director Mueller has served very well, but his term expires early September. It is imperative the Senate work quickly to confirm his successor.

I worked with Ranking Member Grassley to schedule James Comey's confirmation hearing as soon as we returned from the Fourth of July recess. Earlier this month, with Senator Grassley's cooperation, we in the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination of James Comey to the floor. However, in contrast with the treatment of previous FBI Director nominees--the FBI Director nominees of all preceding Presidents--who were all confirmed by the full Senate within a day or two of being reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Comey is the first FBI Director nominee to be filibustered in Senate history by either Republicans or Democrats.

In this case, of course, it is the Republicans who are filibustering a law enforcement position such as this, somebody who was voted out of the committee by every single Republican and Democratic Senator--and then to be filibustered by Republicans on his nomination?

We should be voting to confirm James Comey tonight. It has already taken twice as long to bring up this nomination for a vote in the full Senate as for any previous FBI Director. President Obama officially nominated James Comey on June 21, 38 days ago. No other FBI Director has waited longer than 20 days from nomination to confirmation. The FBI Director plays a very vital role in our national security, and the Senate must put an end to these routine delays.

Nearly 12 years ago, when the Senate considered President Bush's nomination of Robert Mueller to be Director of

the FBI on the same day he had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, I spoke about how the rights of all Americans were at stake in the selection of a new FBI Director and how the FBI has extraordinary power to affect the lives of ordinary Americans.

Contrast that with President Bush, Democrats were in the majority, and we Democrats worked to get President Bush's nominee confirmed the same day he came out of committee.

We Democrats made sure politics were not in play in the confirmation of the FBI Director. Republicans shouldn't allow politics to play in the confirmation of an FBI Director. I said at the time, with Robert Mueller, I noted the FBI's sweeping investigatory powers, when used properly, can protect all of us by combating crime, espionage, and terrorism. But I also warned that unchecked, these same powers could undermine our civil liberties and our right to privacy.

When I spoke those words, I didn't know that just 40 days later the world--and the FBI -would change dramatically in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. It shook this area, including even the Senate because of the anthrax attack, which killed a number of individuals. One of the anthrax letters was addressed to me. As the full Senate considers the President's nomination of James Comey to be the seventh Director of the FBI, what I said in 2001 holds true today. With the increased counterterrorism role of the FBI and the expansion of the FBI's surveillance activities, it is even more imperative that the next FBI Director possesses an unflagging commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law.

James Comey is the right man to lead the FBI. He has had a long and outstanding career in law enforcement. He worked for years as a front- line prosecutor on a range of cases fighting violent crime, terrorism, and white-collar fraud, all of which are at the core of the FBI's mission. He also served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He served as the Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush.

In fact, Madam President, many of us remember, when he was Deputy Attorney General, the dramatic hospital bedside confrontation James Comey had with senior White House officials who tried to prod an ailing John Ashcroft to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program--a program that the Justice Department had concluded was illegal. Yet White House staff was over there trying, at his hospital bed, to get the Attorney General to agree to it. But the Deputy Attorney General stepped in, in his role as Acting Attorney General, and stood firm against this attempt to circumvent the rule of law, and I believe he will continue to show the same strength of character and principled leadership if confirmed as Director.

During his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, James Comey proved that his reputation for unwavering integrity and professionalism is well-deserved. One area of great concern for me was his approval of a 2005 legal memo to authorize the use of various methods of torture, including waterboarding. I wanted to make sure that as FBI Director, James Comey would never condone or resort to waterboarding a prisoner--something for which we have prosecuted people in other countries. He answered my questions and stated directly, unequivocally, that waterboarding is not only personally abhorrent but that it is torture and illegal. He also testified that if confirmed he would continue the FBI's policy of not permitting the use of abusive interrogation techniques against prisoners, including sleep deprivation and cramped confinement.

Mr. Comey and I do not agree on all matters. I do not agree with him that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force permits the government to detain indefinitely an American citizen captured on American soil in military custody without charge or trial, and I will continue to oppose efforts to codify such an interpretation of the law. I was glad James Comey committed to adhering to the current administration policy of not indefinitely detaining Americans in such circumstances.

When he testified before us, I saw a man of integrity and honesty, competent in background, and so once he is confirmed--and I trust he will be confirmed once this filibuster has ended--I will continue to press him on the scope and legality of surveillance conducted by the government pursuant to the PATRIOT Act and other authorities under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. As I noted during his confirmation hearing, just because the FBI has the ability to collect huge amounts of data does not mean it should be collecting huge amounts of data. As the head of our premier law enforcement agency, the FBI Director bears a special responsibility to ensure that domestic government surveillance does not unduly infringe upon our freedoms. I have long said that protecting our national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both. I fully expect that James Comey will work to achieve both goals.

After Director Mueller's distinguished tenure at the Bureau, James Comey has big shoes to fill. The next Director must face the growing challenge of how to sustain the FBI's increased focus on counterterrorism while at the same time upholding the FBI's commitment to its historic law enforcement functions. It is going to be particularly difficult to protect this country and protect our law enforcement functions because of sequestration and other fiscal constraints, but I think the FBI has to continue to play a key role in combating the crimes that affect everyday Americans--from violent crimes, to bank robberies, to fraud and corruption cases.

If we learned nothing else since the September 11 attacks, we learned that it matters who leads our Nation at all levels of government. We need strong, principled, ethical leaders who steadfastly adhere to the law. I am confident that James Comey is such a leader. I am urging Senators on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting to overcome this filibuster in a vote to confirm him to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As I said before--and I will put into the Record how long it has taken from nomination to confirmation--twice as long as President Bush's FBI nomination, more than twice as long as President Reagan's FBI nomination, and twice as long as President Nixon's FBI nomination. In every one of those cases, no Democrat filibustered President Bush, President Reagan, and President Nixon. We all worked to get the FBI Director in there. This filibuster by my friends on the other side of the aisle is unprecedented. I wish they would treat President Obama the same way we treated President Bush, President Reagan, and President Nixon and not make President Obama seem to be somehow different and interfere with law enforcement the way they have.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart showing how long it took previous Presidents.

Madam President, I see my friend from Iowa on the floor, but I want to express for the record my concern about this kind of unprecedented obstruction. And it is unprecedented. I have been here 38 years, and this has never happened before, this unprecedented obstruction of the FBI nominee.

In addition to the unprecedented obstruction on the FBI nominee, I want to mention another topic that my friends on the other side of the aisle are blocking. A small minority of Senators are objecting to moving forward with a budget conference. We have all heard a lot of talk in the last few years about getting our fiscal house in order--it makes for a great campaign slogan. But I am afraid that too many in this body are not following through on their responsibility to govern.

It has been over four months since the Senate passed its version of a budget resolution. We all remember being here overnight voting on amendment after amendment. In the intervening months Senate Democrats have tried 17 times to move to a bipartisan budget conference with the House to work out

a final budget agreement. Yet each time the perfunctory request is made--a request that normally is agreed to shortly after we finish our version of the budget--someone from the other side of the aisle, with the full support of their leadership, objects.

After years of crocodile tears from the other side of aisle about the lack of a budget from the Senate, we finally pass one and they object to moving forward.

After years of hearing how we need to get our fiscal house in order because the national debt is the single most pressing issue facing the country, we pass a responsible budget plan to pay down the debt and they object to moving forward.

When it comes time to turn all the politicking into governing, they get cold feet and object.

As the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee has lamented over and over again, I am sorry to say that for some factions in the Republican Party today ``compromise'' is a dirty word and ``distrust'' is a political tactic. That may explain why Senate Republicans have offered up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order they so desperately pled for just a short time ago. Republicans are denying the opportunity for members of this body to work with members of the other body on hammering out a final budget agreement.

I have been fortunate to serve in this chamber for 38 years. I was elected to the Senate in 1974, the same year the Congressional Budget Act passed into law. And I served here with Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, the first chairman of the Budget Committee. In all those years-- with all those budgets--I cannot recall one, single instance where political obstruction like this blocked the Senate from going to conference on a budget resolution. And just to be sure, I checked with the Congressional Research Service and they could not find another instance of obstruction like this on a budget conference either. Not from Democrats; not from the old GOP; not from anyone until now.

Some in this body have objected to the Senate considering any appropriations bills until a final budget agreement is reached. Let me see if I get this straight. The very same people who have been begging for a new budget plan are blocking the Senate from going to conference on the budget resolution and then saying we cannot possibly deal with any bills to fund the government next year until we have a final budget agreement, inching us even closer to a government shutdown or a government default that would devastate our economy and ruin the very fiscal house they claim they are trying to get in order. Oh, the sweet irony here.

It is time for reason and sanity to return to the Senate--on this budget resolution, on nominations, and on a whole host of other issues. I think returning to regular order on the budget conference--and letting conference members from the House and the Senate work out a final agreement--would be a good first step to bringing some comity and order back to this body so we can serve the American people.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded.

I yield back all remaining time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, last week the Department of Justice announced that the total U.S. prison population declined 1.7 percent from 2011 to 2012. I was encouraged to see that sentencing reform at the State level continues to pay dividends by simultaneously reducing prison costs and crime rates.

I am troubled, however, that the entirety of the reduction in the U.S. prison population was attributable to the States. The number of Federal prisoners actually increased by almost 1,500 from 2011 to 2012. While this increase was smaller than in previous years, the Federal Government can no longer afford to continue on the course of ever- increasing prison costs. As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 219,000, with almost half of those men and women imprisoned on drug charges. This year, the Bureau of Prisons budget request was just below $7 billion.

A major factor driving the increase in the incarceration rate has been the proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences in the last 20 years. This one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing never made us safer, but it has cost us plenty. We must change course. In September, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine the effects of Federal mandatory minimum sentences and measures to reform the system in order to combat injustice in sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars.

In March, I joined with Senator Paul to introduce just such a measure. The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 will give judges greater flexibility in sentencing in cases where a mandatory minimum is unnecessary and counterproductive. Since its introduction, the Justice Safety Valve Act has received endorsements from a diverse group that spans the political spectrum, including articles written by George Will, Grover Norquist, David Keene, and the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases. This is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences. In a 2010 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of more than 600 Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal offenses. That is what our bill does. Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum sentences.

States, including very conservative States like Texas, that have implemented sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop. It is long past time that Congress follow their lead, and a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Federal mandatory minimum sentences is an important place to start.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers President Obama's nomination of Tony West to be the Associate Attorney General, the No. 3 position at the Justice Department. He is a superbly qualified veteran of the Department of Justice who has been serving in this position in an acting capacity for over a year. He had previously been confirmed by the Senate to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

Before his work in the Justice Department, Mr. West spent 8 years in private practice in San Francisco, where he was a partner at a well- respected law firm and specialized in complex commercial litigation. He also served as a special assistant attorney general in the California Department of Justice, as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, and as a special assistant to two Deputy Attorneys General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. West earned his B.A. from Harvard, and his J.D. from Stanford University Law School, where he was elected president of the Stanford Law Review.

The Judiciary Committee received dozens of letters in support of Tony West from various individuals and organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Sheriff's Association, and Taxpayers Against Fraud. The National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives wrote that ``throughout Mr. West's career, he has proven to be an effective partner to law enforcement. With this experience, we believe him to be well-qualified to serve as Associate Attorney General and look forward to working with him on a broad range of law enforcement and public safety issues. It is our hope that the Senate will confirm Mr. West promptly to serve as the Associate Attorney General of the United States.''

This endorsement is typical of the many letters sent in support of Mr. West. I ask unanimous consent that a list of all 36 letters of support for Mr. West's nomination be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

I am confident that Tony West is well-qualified to be Associate Attorney General, and I hope he will be confirmed without further delay.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the junior Senator from Louisiana, which effectively imposes a lifetime ban on individuals who have been convicted of certain serious crimes from obtaining Federal housing assistance. Today is a new legislative day, and many of us in this body may have already moved on to the next meeting, the next issue, the next vote. But as I have reflected on that amendment, I am concerned the direction these types of amendments are taking us.

I had significant concerns with the lack of notice given to Senators about the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, and the speed with which a vote was scheduled. In the span of roughly 90 minutes, the amendment was filed, made pending, and set for a rollcall vote. This amendment was never considered by the relevant subcommittee in the markup of the bill, nor vetted for unintended consequences.

I am deeply concerned about what the sort of amendment offered by the junior Senator from Louisiana says about us as a Senate, and as a Nation. Following on the heels of a similar amendment offered by Senator Vitter on the farm bill, I expect that similar amendments will be filed and offered on virtually every future bill. This has to stop.

In our system of justice, when someone is convicted of a crime and serves a sentence, I believe that person deserves a second chance and an opportunity to reintegrate as a productive member of society. That is a principle of fairness and justice that I know not only from my days as a prosecutor, but through my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is a basic notion instilled in me from an early age, and reinforced by my faith. As I have long heard from the faith community, it is our moral obligation to rehabilitate and restore people who have committed crimes. We all have made mistakes, and I challenge any Member to come to the floor and say that they haven't themselves sought forgiveness or a second chance.

We have to get past the point where we are scoring political points on the backs of those who have committed crimes but have served their sentence. We must find a way to reintegrate them into society. That is how we make our communities safer.

No one in this body should want a convicted felon to become a repeat offender. And I assume no Senator wants to punish the family members of an offender for crimes they did not commit. Yet that would be the effect of the Vitter amendments. Such measures have the effect of extending punishment beyond the original term; they would act as a lifetime ban and make it harder for ex-offenders and their families to get back on their feet. I reluctantly supported the amendment this week because Federal regulations already give housing officials the ability to keep dangerous criminals, sex offenders, and domestic abusers out of public housing. While this diminishes somewhat the overall impact of that amendment, the mandatory draconian nature of the Vitter amendment remains deeply troubling. As the senior Senator from Louisiana stated when Senator Vitter offered a similar amendment a few years ago, such an approach is simply ``mean-spirited and counterproductive.''

I am concerned that this is just the first of a series of similarly mean-spirited and counterproductive amendments. Now that the Senate has moved to impose a lifetime ban on food and housing assistance for some who have served their criminal sentences, what will be next? Will we next decide to take away education or employment assistance? Should we ban ex-offenders from libraries or public parks? The aggregate effect of such efforts will be to relegate an ex-offender and perhaps his or her family to a lifetime of poverty, homelessness, and isolation. That does not make us safer. It just makes us meaner and less compassionate. I hope we will stop using this political tactic and work together to help give people a second chance.

I know many Senators here share this goal. This is a complicated issue that demands thoughtful solutions, and we must work together if we have any hope of achieving real change. Public safety is about more than lengthy prison sentences. It also requires efforts to reintegrate into our communities those who have served their time. We know that reentry efforts reduce recidivism and we must be thoughtful when we take options off the table like we did this week.

I praise groups like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Prison Fellowship, and the Sentencing Project who have worked tirelessly to help provide opportunities for individuals who have committed crimes, and to work toward the rehabilitation and restoration of their families. At the core of their work are fundamental notions of justice and compassion--the same principles that I hope will guide the work of the Senate as we go forward.

Mr. President, 10 years ago this week, Congress passed a watershed piece of legislation. The Prison Rape Elimination Act was the first comprehensive legislative effort to prevent something we had long been reluctant to even acknowledge existed--the incidence of rape in our Federal, State, and local corrections facilities.

Violence and victimization have no place in our society, including in our prisons, and we have an obligation to ensure these facilities are safe. The punishment of incarceration does not, and cannot, include a sentence of rape. And yet we know that all too often it does. A recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that nearly 1 in 10 inmates in America had been sexually assaulted in custody.

Too often the victims of such violence end up being the most vulnerable members of our population. Women, racial minorities, and those suffering from mental illness face increased rates of sexual violence while incarcerated.

Children in adult jails are at the greatest risk of being victimized. Juveniles housed with adults are 35% more likely than other inmates to be targeted for sexual assault, and that abuse is taking a terrible toll on this already vulnerable population. Youth under the age of 18 are 36 times more likely to commit suicide than if they were housed in a juvenile detention facility. With 100,000 youth held in adult jails and prisons every year, this is a problem we must address head on.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act gives us the tools to do that. Because of this law the Department of Justice now collects data about the incidence of sexual violence in our prisons so we can better understand the scope of the problem. We have adopted national standards and best practices to create safer environments, especially when it comes to juvenile detention and the dangers inherent in incarcerating our youth with adult prisoners. The law provides for increased training for prison staff, makes it easier for inmates to report violence, and requires prompt medical and mental health treatment for victims.

These protections make sense, and that is why we made sure that the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that was signed into law earlier this year made clear that these protections also apply to every immigration detention facility operated by the Department of Homeland Security. We are making good progress, but more work lies ahead.

Sexual violence in our detention facilities compromises the health and safety of the inmates, staff, and the communities to which these prisoners will someday return. Although improvements have been made in the past 10 years, let us pause on this anniversary to reflect on the importance of ensuring that every American is safe from violence, and treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Mr. President, last night, the National Museum of Women in the Arts hosted a screening of the documentary entitled, Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment. As we prepare to observe the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, this important film focuses on four individuals who will forever be connected with the battle for racial equality and the pursuit of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream. I want to recognize one of those individuals, Vivian Malone Jones.

Ms. Malone was one of two brave African-American students to enroll at the University of Alabama in 1963, despite the threat of Alabama Governor George C. Wallace to stop integration at ``the schoolhouse door.'' The picture of Ms. Malone walking into the University of Alabama, flanked by National Guard troops, is an iconic image that is forever etched in our Nation's memory.

Ms. Malone grew up in the racially segregated city of Mobile, AL. She was just 12 years old when the Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. The historic decision inspired Ms. Malone, who as a National Honor Society student in high school committed herself to efforts ending segregation. She went on to become one of the most important civil rights figures in our country's history.

In her lifetime, Ms. Malone personified dignity and strength. She also lived history. The day after she and classmate James Hood were escorted into the University's Foster Auditorium by the National Guard and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, seeking to enroll in classes, civil rights leader Medgar Evers was shot and killed in Mississippi. This only made Ms. Malone more determined. She once said that she ``decided not to show any fear and went to class that day.'' While an undergraduate student, she found a community of support and

friendship among fellow members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority--the Nation's largest predominately African-American women's organization. And in 1965, she became the first African American to graduate from the University of Alabama, earning a degree in Business Management.

Ms. Malone was not just a symbol of courage; she also set an example of forgiveness. In 1996 Governor Wallace, who 3 decades earlier stood in the entryway to the university's auditorium, flanked by State troopers, to prevent Ms. Malone from enrolling, awarded her with the first Lurleen B. Wallace Award for Courage. Later recalling their conversation, Ms. Malone said that she simply spoke with Governor Wallace about forgiveness.

Throughout her life, Ms. Malone was dedicated to the preservation and enforcement of our civil rights laws. After graduation, she worked for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division. In 1977, she took over as Executive Director for the Voter Education Project following the resignation of another civil rights legend, Congressman John Lewis. Eventually, Ms. Malone rose to become a Director of Civil Rights and Urban Affairs for the Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta, GA, before retiring there in 1996.

In 2000, she gave the commencement address at the University of Alabama and advised the new graduates: ``If there is any lesson for the graduates to take from my experience, it is that you must always be ready to seize the moment.'' Ms. Malone passed away on October 15, 2005, but her legacy continues. It lives on through her children, grandchildren, and siblings. It also lives on through the important work of her brother-in-law, Attorney General Eric Holder. He has done so much in the past 5 years to return the Civil Rights Division to its core mission. I have no doubt that his sense of purpose is informed by the proud history of the Malone family including his sister-in-law, Vivian, and his wife, Dr. Sharon Malone.

As we honor our Nation's civil rights heroes in preparation for next month's momentous anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech and the historic March on Washington, let us honor another courageous icon who told those University of Alabama graduates in 2000, ``You may not live in a time of great social change as I did, but you will just as certainly face moral choices.'' I hope Ms. Malone's courage, determination, and forgiveness will serve as a guiding light for generations to come, and to make the right moral choices in our own lives.

Mr. President, more than 3 weeks have passed since interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans have doubled for students next year. Unfortunately, this rate increase has taken effect despite numerous attempts by the Senate to extend the lower rates while we debate a comprehensive solution to the high cost of college, including student loan interest rates. Few if any bills that make their arduous way through the legislative process are perfect, but the legislation we are considering today is, in too many ways, too imperfect. Even after our attempts to win approval of better options, this legislation, in its final form, does not offer enough to protect our future students from needlessly paying higher interest rates.

Education is a path out of poverty, a road to personal growth, and an access ramp to professional accomplishment and economic security. No student should be denied the benefits of a college education because of the cost, but unfortunately that is happening all too often. In recent years, average college tuition rates have been increasing faster than inflation and outpacing student financial aid. Tuition rates today are going beyond the ability of most families to pay. As a result, students and their parents take on significant student loan debt in order to have the opportunity at a college education.

I believe that the Federal Government has an obligation to support these students by subsidizing loans for the lowest income students and offering programs like Pell Grants to help students who never thought they could afford college. While the bill lowers interest rates for 11 million students in the near term, students and their parents by as soon as 2015 will likely pay higher interest than they pay under current law. Debt from student loans is climbing to new heights and outstanding student loan debt in the United States has reached nearly $1 trillion.

This debate has included consideration of two amendments that I am pleased to cosponsor that would greatly improve the underlying legislation. Senators Reed and Warren filed an amendment to reduce the caps on interest rates to current levels, ensuring that students are no worse off under this legislation than they are today. We also have considered an amendment by Senator Sanders, which will sunset this agreement after 2 years, ensuring that Congress continues the important conversation at how best to reduce college costs for students and their families. I very much hoped that these amendments could have been adopted.

This legislation is a mere patch on a much larger problem. We must have a comprehensive debate at lowering college costs through the Higher Education Act reauthorization this fall. As part of that debate I dearly hope we address the abuses of for-profit colleges and the raw deal they are giving to far too many students. While these schools are turning a profit and filling the airwaves with paid advertising, many of their students are defaulting on their federal loans because these schools by and large do not offer an adequate education that prepares students for the working world. Some of these schools are swindling our students, and we cannot adequately address college affordability without better regulating for-profit schools.

This legislation is not what I would have drafted. Under the new student loan bill, the Federal Government will make an additional $715 million in profits over the next decade, and all of the profit is coming from the pocketbooks of students and their families. While I am pleased the legislation includes a GAO study within 4 months to help us better understand the costs to the government of running the student loan program, so that we can better set appropriate student loan interest rates that do not generate revenue for the Federal Government, it does not go far enough to protect our students.

This conversation is not completed. The challenge and the obligation of making college affordable certainly remains. We have a responsibility to families across America to not only keep student loan interest rates low in the years ahead, as they plan their finances and manage their households, but to make fundamental reforms to help students and their families manage college costs. I am counting on that debate, and I know America's students are, too.

Mr. President, yesterday was a good day for the Senate. I want to praise the majority leader, who brought the Senate back from the brink, and the hard work of Senators from both parties who listened to each other during a lengthy discussion. In particular, I thank Senator Wicker for suggesting Monday night's bipartisan caucus, which allowed for a much needed dialogue among all Senators, and Senator McCain for his efforts to bring both sides together. The last time we held a bipartisan caucus meeting, in April, it was to hear Senator McCain discuss his experience as a prisoner of war. In all my time in the Senate, that was a particularly memorable evening for me. It is my hope these kinds of bipartisan discussions, like the one we had Monday night, will lead to better communication in the Senate and help us work together more effectively so we can address the problems that Americans face.

Until yesterday, Senate Republicans had been blocking votes on several important Executive nominations, including Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Gina McCarthy to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Tom Perez to be Secretary of Labor; and three of the five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. Rather than arising from substantive opposition to these individual nominees, this obstruction was a partisan attempt to sabotage and eviscerate these agencies which protect consumers, the clean air and water that the American people want and deserve, and American workers. For example, I am unaware of any personal opposition to Richard Cordray, but Senate Republicans simply refused even to allow a confirmation vote for the director of an agency that they dislike. His confirmation last night, 2 years after he was first nominated, means that the CFPB is now truly empowered to protect American consumers.

During my 38 years in the Senate, I have served with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, during Republican administrations and Democratic ones. Whether in the majority or the minority, whether the chairman or ranking member of a committee, I have always stood for the protection of the rights of the minority. Even when the minority has voted differently than I have or opposed what I have supported, I have defended their rights and held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out and that the 100 of us who represent over 310 million Americans would do the right thing.

Yet over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have changed the tradition of the Senate with their escalating obstruction, and these actions threaten the Senate's ability to do the work of the American people.

Instead of trying to work across the aisle on efforts to help the American people at a time of economic challenges, Senate Republicans have relied on the unprecedented use of the filibuster to thwart progress. They have long since crossed the line from use of the Senate rules to abuse of the rules, exploiting them to undermine our ability to solve national problems.

Filibusters that were once used rarely have now become a common occurrence, with Senate Republicans raising procedural barriers even to considering legislation or to voting on the kinds of noncontroversial nominations the Senate once confirmed regularly and quickly by unanimous consent. The majority leader has been required to file cloture just to ensure that the Senate makes any progress at all to address our national and economic security, and a supermajority of the Senate is now needed even to allow a vote on basic issues.

That is not how the Senate should work or has worked. The Senate has a tradition of comity, with rules that function only with the kind of consent that previously was almost always given. The rules are not designed to encourage Senators to obstruct at every turn. The Senate does not function if an entire caucus takes every opportunity to use obscure procedural loopholes to stand in the way of a vote because they might disagree with the result. Without serious steps to curtail these abuses, the approach taken during the Obama administration by Senate Republicans risks turning the rules of the Senate into a farce and calls into question the ability of the Senate to perform its constitutional functions.

I was hopeful that the agreement reached earlier this year by the majority leader and the Republican leader represented a serious step toward restoring the Senate's ability to work for the American people. I was hopeful that the Republican Senators who joined with Senate Democrats in January would follow through on their commitment to curtail the abuse of Senate rules and practices that have marred the last 4 years.

That is why I was so disappointed by the continued obstruction President Obama's nominees have been facing. This obstruction has serious consequences for the American people. The harm being done is no more readily apparent than with the Republican effort to shut down the National Labor Relations Board. It was critical that we reach a workable agreement with Senate Republicans to confirm nominees to the NLRB to ensure it will be able to function--rather than leave it in its current situation of facing a shutdown due to lack of quorum at the end of next month. Shutting down the NLRB would deny justice to American workers, stripping them of their right to organize and to speak out in favor of fair wages and decent working conditions without fear of retaliation. It would also prevent employees from creating a union, or for that matter, voting to end union representation. Without an NLRB, employers will also be hurt because they will be unable to stop unlawful activities by unions, including unlawful strikes. Workers and employers depend on the NLRB, and Senate Republicans should allow votes on the President's nominees so that the Board can do its job.

Last week, some Senate Republicans declared that they could never allow a vote on the NLRB nominees who had received recess appointments to those positions, because the recess appointments have been determined by the DC Circuit to be illegal. However, according to that ruling by the DC Circuit, a total of 141 of President Bush's recess appointments were illegal. I do not recall any Senate Republicans arguing that those nominees should not be allowed a vote.

Senate Republicans should have considered President Obama's NLRB nominees on their own merits, and, even if they would ultimately have opposed them, they should have allowed the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote. I have no doubt that if considered on their own merits the two previously recess-appointed NLRB nominees would have been confirmed and would have continued to serve the Nation well.

These filibusters have been damaging to the Senate and our Nation. When it comes to Executive nominations, a President should have wide discretion to staff his or her administration.

Our form of representative democracy requires a degree of self- restraint from all of us for the legislative system to work for the good of the Nation and for the well-being of the American people. I believe that the strong cloture and confirmation votes on Richard Cordray's nomination yesterday reflect an acknowledgement of this principle by some Senate Republicans. While this deal leaves in place both the majority's ability to pursue further rules reform and the minority's ability to filibuster executive branch nominations, I hope that neither tool will be used. If the Senate Republicans who voted with us yesterday to invoke cloture on Richard Cordray continue to cooperate and work with us to allow

fair consideration of President Obama's, or any President's, executive branch nominations, the deal reached yesterday will rightfully be seen as an important step in restoring the Senate's ability to function.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Jennifer Dorsey to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Jennifer Dorsey has spent her entire legal career at the Las Vegas, NV firm of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP, where she has been partner for the past 9 years. She has diverse experience in civil and criminal matters, trial and appellate work, and State and Federal courts, and has tried more than a dozen trials to verdict. The committee has heard from Judge Deanell Tacha, who was nominated by President Reagan to the Tenth Circuit and is now the dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, in support of Jennifer Dorsey. She wrote:

I am well acquainted with Ms. Dorsey and can say, with full

confidence, that she is an outstanding candidate for the

federal judiciary who would serve with great distinction . .

. She is a distinguished lawyer, a highly respected member of

her community, and a true servant of the public good.

Her qualifications notwithstanding, Jennifer Dorsey has been the target of a false controversy over political donations made by her law firm colleagues. It is ironic that the same Senate Republicans who have filibustered any attempt to regulate or scrutinize political donations, and who objected to my request during the Bush administration to include political campaign contributions by nominees in the committee questionnaire, are now using donations by a nominee's colleagues to smear the nominee. These donations that the ranking member claimed he was concerned about were not even known to the nominee until they were reported in local newspapers. Ms. Dorsey has answered the ranking member's questions on this issue under oath and I consider it settled. Senate Republicans did not ask such questions of President Bush's nominees, even nominees who themselves made donations to President Bush or their home State Republican Senators after they knew that they were being considered for a judgeship. Perhaps now Senate Republicans think we should look at donations made by nominees' friends and neighbors?

This is just one more example of Senate Republicans playing games with President Obama's judicial nominees, rather than actually looking at the nominees' records. False controversies about nominees like Paul Watford, Patty Schwartz, Andrew Hurwitz, Caitlin Halligan, and Jeffrey Helmick over who they represented, or who they clerked for, demean the confirmation process.

Jennifer Dorsey is one of the 33 judicial nominees who needed to be renominated this year. Unfortunately, the Senate is not able to consider another district of Nevada nominee, Judge Elissa Cadish, whose nomination was withdrawn after the Republican Senator from Nevada refused to return his blue slip on her nomination. The concern with Judge Cadish seemed to be that in 2008 she had accurately stated existing Second Amendment jurisprudence. Judge Cadish was originally appointed to the Nevada bench by a Republican Governor, and in a 2011 judicial performance evaluation, conducted

by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 88 percent of the lawyers who responded said she should be retained on the bench, which was among the highest of all judges evaluated. So I remain disappointed that her nomination was withdrawn and that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate were not permitted to consider it, especially since the vacancy to which Judge Cadish was nominated is now a judicial emergency vacancy.

In addition to the 33 renominations at the start of this year, President Obama has nominated another 28 individuals to be circuit and district judges this year, and has now had more nominees at this point in his presidency than his predecessor did at the same point. Senate Republicans are nonetheless criticizing President Obama for making too few nominations while protesting that the fact that many vacancies do not have nominees cannot possibly be the fault of Senate Republicans. These Senators are saying that they have no role in the process. Of course, only a few years ago, before President Obama had made a single judicial nomination, all Senate Republicans sent him a letter threatening to filibuster his nominees if he did not consult Republican home State Senators. They cannot have it both ways.

I take very seriously my responsibility to make recommendations when we have vacancies in Vermont, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, and other Senators should do the same. After all, if there are not enough judges in our home States, it is our own constituents who suffer. It should be only a matter of weeks or months, not years, for Senators to make recommendations. Republican Senators who demanded to be consulted on nominations should live up to their responsibilities, and fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise the President on nominations. They should follow the example of Democratic Senators: the administration has received recommendations for all current district vacancies in States represented by two Democratic Senators. When Senate Republicans refuse to make recommendations for nominees, and then delay votes on consensus nominees, they are not somehow hurting the President, they are hurting the American people and our justice system.

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

Mr. President, I don't wish to in any way cut into the time of the senior Senator from Wyoming, but I hope once he and Senator Barrasso have finished speaking--once their time is consumed--we might agree that the vote will still be at 5:30, if possible, or as close to that time as possible.

Our Constitution provides the Senate an important role to play in providing advice to the President and in voting on whether to confirm nominees for our third branch of government. Last month, we were reminded of the importance of these confirmation votes when the Supreme Court handed down several narrowly-decided opinions that are already impacting millions of Americans. As a senior member of this chamber, I have voted on the confirmation of every one of the nine justices currently serving. Since only a tiny percentage of cases brought in Federal court ever end up at the Supreme Court, the Federal courts of appeal are often the courts of last resort for most disputes. I am glad that today we are finally voting to confirm another appellate nominee.

Before the Memorial Day recess, the minority leader asked during a floor debate when Gregory Phillips, the Wyoming nominee to the Tenth Circuit, would receive a vote. When the majority leader immediately offered a vote on that nominee, the minority leader demurred without giving any reason. Senate Republicans have now finally decided to allow the vote on Gregory Phillips to move forward, but there was no reason for this delay in his confirmation vote.

Gregory Phillips is currently the attorney general of Wyoming, a position to which he was appointed by Wyoming's Republican Governor. From 2010 to 2011 he worked in the Wyoming attorney general's office as the special assistant to the Governor for legislative affairs. Prior to working in the Wyoming attorney general's office, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Wyoming, and spent 14 years in private practice. Attorney general Phillips has also served as a part-time deputy county attorney, an assistant municipal judge and as a state senator. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan B. Johnson of the U.S. district court for the District of Wyoming. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Phillips ``well qualified,'' its highest rating.

At his Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Phillips was introduced by his two Republican home State Senators, Senator Enzi and Senator Barrasso, both of whom strongly support his nomination. He was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago. While his confirmation vote has not been delayed quite as long as votes on most of President Obama's nominees, he could and should have been confirmed last May when the majority leader offered.

With the confirmation of Attorney General Phillips, there will be 10 active judges on the Tenth Circuit. According to the most recent data, this means that the number of pending appeals per active judge on that court will drop from 150 to 135. I mention this because another appellate court, the DC Circuit, currently has 177 pending appeals per active judge. Despite that higher caseload, some Senate Republicans argue that the DC Circuit's caseload is too low, and that three of its judgeships should be eliminated. I suspect that many, if not all, of these Senators will vote to confirm Attorney General Phillips, even though his confirmation means that the Tenth Circuit will now have the lowest caseload in the country, just as earlier this year they supported the confirmation of Jane Kelly to the Eighth Circuit, which gave that court the lowest caseload in the country, and just as they supported the confirmation of Robert Bacharach to the Tenth Circuit, which gave that court the lowest caseload in the country. I hope those Senators will reconsider their double standard and not play politics with an independent branch of government.

Some of the same Senate Republicans who are opposing President Obama's three nominees to the DC Circuit are also criticizing him for making too few nominations and somehow claiming that many vacancies without a nominee cannot possibly be the fault of Senate Republicans. I recall that before President Obama made a single judicial nomination, all Senate Republicans sent him a letter threatening to filibuster his nominees if he did not consult Republican home State Senators. They cannot have it both ways.

I take very seriously my responsibility to make recommendations when we have vacancies in Vermont, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, and other Senators should do the same. After all, if there are not enough judges in our home States, it is our own constituents who suffer. It should be only a matter of weeks or months, not years, for Senators to make recommendations.

Unfortunately, in some States it appears as if there is no effort being made to recommend qualified nominees to the administration. There are three district vacancies in Georgia without nominees, and the oldest is over 4 years old. There are three district vacancies in Kentucky without nominees, and the oldest is over a year and a half old. There are seven district vacancies in Texas without nominees, and the oldest is over 4\1/2\ years old. Three months ago the Senators from Texas announced a nominations commission, but it is my understanding that it is still not accepting applications. If Senators want new judgeships in their States, they should be working especially hard to ensure that all existing ones are filled. Republican Senators who demanded to be consulted on nominations should live up to their responsibilities and fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise the President on nominations. They should follow the example of Democratic Senators: the administration has received recommendations for all current district vacancies in States represented by two Democratic Senators.

Moreover, the failure of some Republican Senators to help fill vacancies in their own States does not excuse their unwillingness to complete action on the nominations the President has made. I regret that I must correct the record, again, on how Senate Republicans have obstructed judicial nominees over the past 4 years. The continued assertion by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's nominees have been confirmed is not accurate. President Obama has nominated 243 individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 197 have been confirmed by the Senate. That is 81 percent, not 99 percent. By way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second term, July 8 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated 10 fewer people to be circuit or district judges, but had seen 215 of them confirmed, which is 18 more confirmations. The truth is that 92 percent

of President Bush's judicial nominees had been confirmed at the same point, 11 percentage points more than have been allowed for President Obama. That is an apples-to-apples comparison, and it demonstrates the undeniable fact that the Senate has confirmed a lower number and a lower percentage of President Obama's nominees than President Bush's nominees at the same time in their Presidencies.

I noted at the end of last year, while Senate Republicans were insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that should have taken place in wrap up, we would not likely be allowed to complete work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican plan. So when Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their confirmations in President Obama's second term, they are inflating the confirmation statistics. The truth is that only 11 circuit and district confirmations have taken place this year that are not attributable to those nominations Senate Republicans needlessly held over from last year. To use a baseball analogy, if a baseball player goes 0 for 9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1 for 10, and not a very good hitter, nor would a fair calculation of hits or home runs allow a player to credit those that occurred in one game to the next because it would make his stats look better.

If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as President Bush's, today's vote would bring us to 215 confirmations, not 198, and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted that it will require 29 more district and circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's 5-year total. Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the first 6 months of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed President Obama to match even the record of President Bush's first term. Even with an extra 6 months, we are still eight confirmations behind where we were at the end of 2004.

The assertion by some Senate Republicans that ``there is no difference in how this President's nominees are being treated versus how President Bush's nominees were treated'' is simply not supported by the facts. Compared to the same point in the Bush administration, there have been more nominees filibustered, fewer confirmations, and longer wait times for nominees, even though President Obama has nominated more people and there are more vacancies. And while Senate Republicans have taken to comparing President Obama's fifth year to President Bush's fifth year, the fact is that there were fewer confirmations then because we had done such good work in President Bush's first term, in particular the 100 confirmations we achieved during the 17 months in 2001 and 2002 when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In fact, from June 9, 2005, until October 20, 2005, there were no consensus judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. So the only reason there have been more votes this year than in 2005 is that, contrary to Republicans' assertions, we have had more nominees this year, mostly because they were held over from last year by Senate Republicans.

While the routine and sustained delays over the past 4 years are without precedent, Republicans point to June 2004 as the one time that there were a number of President Bush's nominees pending on the floor. I recall that in early 2004, President Bush had bypassed the Senate and recess appointed two controversial nominees to be circuit judges and that around that time we learned that Republican committee staff hacked into a shared server to pilfer Democratic files. Still, we were able to clear nominations by confirming more than 20 consensus nominees in just 1 month. There is nothing like that to explain the years of backlogged judicial nominees during this administration.

Context matters. Anyone can point to this example or that example, but when you look at the whole picture, it is clear that President Obama's nominees have faced unprecedented delays on the Senate floor and that his nominees have been less likely to be confirmed than President Bush's at the same point.

But the context of these statistics also matters. Judicial nominations should not be about partisan tit for tat. Judicial vacancies impact millions of people, all across America, who depend on our Federal courts for justice. When you compare the Senate's record from 2001 to 2005, and from 2009 to 2013, it is clear that we are not meeting the standard we set for how quickly the Senate can act to fill judicial vacancies. Throughout my career, whether as a prosecutor or as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have fought for justice, and to ensure that people have access to justice and can have their day in court. That is why my recent statements have discussed not only the delays in the nominations process, but also the impact of sequestration cuts on our legal system. I continue to hear from judges and other legal professionals about the serious problems sequestration either has caused or will cause if we do not fix it.

Chief Justice John Roberts recently noted that sequestration ``hit [the judiciary] particularly hard. . . . When we have sustained cuts that means people have to be furloughed or worse and that has a more direct impact on the services that we can provide.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article titled ``Chief Justice Roberts: Sequester cuts hitting federal judiciary `hard' '' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. We should all be doing everything we can to help our coequal branch meet the Constitution's promise of justice for all Americans.

The impact of sequestration on the third branch is compounded by the high level of judicial vacancies. I know we can do better because we have done better. Each day that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm the qualified judicial nominees who have been reviewed and voted on by the Judiciary Committee is another day that a judge could have been working to resolve disputes. Hard-working Americans should not have to wait years to have their cases decided.

Even if it were true, it is not good enough to say that the Senate is treating President Obama's nominees the same as it treated President Bush's. The real question is whether the Senate is meeting its duty to do everything it reasonably can to ensure the American people have access to justice. When Senate Republicans refuse to make recommendations for nominees, and then delay votes on consensus nominees, they are not somehow hurting the President, they are hurting the American people and our justice system.

Today, Attorney General Phillips will finally be confirmed by the Senate, and there are many more nominees the Senate should consider in the coming weeks. Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from James Comey, who President Obama has nominated to serve as FBI Director. Later this week the committee will begin the process of considering the first of three current nominees to the DC Circuit. The Judiciary Committee is also scheduled this week to vote on the nomination of B. Todd Jones to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The ATF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director since 2006. Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote on President Bush's nominee to lead the ATF and I hope they will not attempt to do the same again. Nominees to lead the Labor Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also awaiting our consideration. I hope the Senate will be able to come together and confirm these worthy nominees without the delay that has befallen so many nominees in the past 4 years.

So I can help speed up things, I yield back all time on the Democratic side and yield to the senior Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, I would notify the assistant Republican leader I will be making a unanimous consent request in a few minutes after my remarks. I do not want him to be surprised by that.

Members representing all corners of this great Nation have been working hard on amendments to improve this comprehensive immigration bill. For a week now we have been trying to negotiate a package of noncontroversial amendments to be included in this legislation.

In my experience over the years, both in the majority and in the minority, for whatever bill you had before the Senate, when you have a list of noncontroversial amendments, they are simply agreed to by everybody and put in a managers' package so as not to take up a day voting on things that are going to pass anyway.

Last week I filed a managers' package of amendments. I removed from this list the ones that have been objected to by other Members. Instead, though, the Republican minority has taken the position that in order to even clear a few noncontroversial amendments--which includes both Republican and Democratic amendments--the majority must agree to vote on dozens of highly contentious measures, including amendments being offered by Senators who have said that no matter what happens they are going to oppose the legislation. In my experience, under both Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate, that has never been considered reasonable.

Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have complained we have not had more votes on this bipartisan immigration bill, and I share that frustration. From the outset, Republicans have delayed the bill's consideration and the ability of Members to file amendments by filibustering the motion to proceed to the bill. We all know the bill is going to get cloture, but they still filibustered the motion to proceed--just as one more delaying tactic. In fact, 15 Members refused to even cut off a filibuster, not for a vote on the legislation, but just to bring it on the floor so we could begin to debate it--delay after delay after delay.

Then once we overcame the filibuster and we could debate the legislation, I offered an amendment, and then I agreed to set it aside so Senator Grassley could call up a Republican amendment--again, the comity we usually have in this place. Well, then, when the next set of amendments was ready to be made pending, the Republicans, instead of doing what we Democrats did--allowing them to come up--objected to setting aside the pending amendment and prevented the next two amendments from becoming pending and ready for a vote. Then they objected to time agreements on votes. They even objected to allowing the leader to modify my amendment late last week, last Thursday night.

They complain about delays--why aren't we voting? Every time we try to vote, they object.

The lack of cooperation on this bipartisan bill has been frustrating for Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have had a lot of Republican Senators who have come to me saying they do not agree with these delays. It has been clear since day one that a small minority of Republican Senators is going to do anything to thwart this bill's passage. It is hard to sympathize with those who complain they cannot get a vote on their amendments, when they have objected to even the most minor consent agreements to make progress on the bill. The expression ``crocodile tears'' comes to mind.

We have tried to find a way forward for votes on both sides, but it has been thwarted. It makes one wonder whether some would rather have the ability to complain about process rather than take votes to improve the bill. I had hoped we could agree to a reasonable number of votes this week.

Unfortunately, some people here want to vote maybe. They do not want to vote yes or no. We are elected to vote yes or no, not maybe.

Yesterday we proposed votes on 17 Republican amendments and a smaller number--15--of Democratic amendments, but Republicans objected. It is a shame we have not been able to continue the momentum of bipartisan cooperation that marked the Judiciary Committee's process that has brought this bill so far.

In the Judiciary Committee we had 301 amendments filed. We approved around 140 amendments. All but two or three were passed with bipartisan votes--both Democrats and Republicans. And when we finished all those, I asked if anybody wanted to bring up any further amendments. They did not. And we passed the bill out with a bipartisan majority. But we voted. Sometimes we voted a dozen times in 2 hours.

We still have a chance to move a package of noncontroversial amendments. Instead of insisting the Senate vote on dozens of controversial amendments designed to harm the careful balance in this legislation, Republicans should clear the noncontroversial and good ideas on which many Republican and Democratic Senators have worked so hard. The amendments included on my manager's list have widespread support. They have been filed by Senators--both Republicans and Democrats--over the past 3 weeks. Many have already been discussed at length here on the Senate floor.

I will take some examples. This package of noncontroversial amendments contains bipartisan amendments to improve oversight of certain immigration programs. It contains entirely technical amendments to the bill. It contains a bipartisan amendment by Senators Nelson and Wicker to provide for maritime security, as they have so correctly pointed out on this floor that we have a long border--not just our land border; we have very long borders on two oceans. It contains an amendment by a group of northern border Senators, led by Senator Heitkamp, to ensure border security measures at the northern border. There are several amendments from our colleagues from New Mexico to help facilitate cross-border travel and commerce.

The list includes an amendment by Senator Brown to ensure that the border fence is constructed of materials made in America. Who could vote against that? The list contains an amendment by Senator Cochran and Senator Landrieu. She is the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. It requires increased reporting on the EB-5 program--something that should be a no-brainer. The list contains two amendments championed by Senators Coats, Klobuchar, and Landrieu to ease the process for international adoptions--a humanitarian measure that should get strong bipartisan support. But these are just a few examples of what we have in here that we have all agreed should be able to be passed.

I wish the list were longer. Early yesterday morning, I learned there were Republican objections to a number of Democratic amendments that had been on my list, including several that have Republican cosponsors. I was surprised to hear there are concerns about several of these amendments. One of those that has apparently raised Republican concerns is an amendment by Senator Hagan to authorize a border crime prevention program and reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Program to protect law enforcement officers. The Bulletproof Vest Program is from the days when Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I first introduced it, and it has gotten overwhelming support because of all the lives of police officers it has saved.

I hope those who are objecting to it will--the next time we have a police memorial here on the Mall in remembrance of those police officers who have died--explain to those police officers in attendance why they are opposed to them having bulletproof vests.

Yet another is an amendment Senator Feinstein, Senator Cornyn, and others have championed to provide the judiciary with the resources to handle the large number of immigration cases.

I do not understand why these are considered controversial. I was disappointed we had to remove the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment from this list because Republicans objected to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment on resources for the judiciary.

Nonetheless, I took these off, even though I thought they would be noncontroversial. I liked the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, and the others--the bulletproof vest amendment--but we took them off because Republicans objected.

So now I am going to propose a list--and I want to make sure the Republican leader is on the floor--that contains 32 sensible, noncontroversial amendments that strengthen the bill and makes it better. They deserve to be adopted. I recognize and share the frustration of many Senators who have worked on their amendments and want their chance to influence the bill. Amendments that have broad support should not be held hostage by the partisanship that has impeded our work.

I am going to offer now--incidentally, before I do, I note there are 32 in here; the majority of them--17--have Republican support.

I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be called up en bloc; that the clerks be authorized to modify the instruction lines, where necessary, to match the intended page and line numbers of the committee-reported substitute, as amended; and the Senate then proceed to vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc: Baucus-Tester No. 1512; Boxer No. 1240; Brown No. 1597; Cardin-Kirk No. 1286; Carper-McCain No. 1558, as modified with changes that are at the desk; Carper No. 1590; Coats No. 1288; Coats No. 1373; Coburn No. 1509; Coons No. 1715; Flake No. 1472; Heinrich No. 1342; Heinrich No. 1417; Heinrich No. 1559; Heitkamp No. 1593; Klobuchar-Landrieu-Coats-Blunt No. 1261; Klobuchar- Coats-Landrieu-Blunt No. 1526; Landrieu-Coats No. 1338; Landrieu- Cochran No. 1383; Leahy No. 1454; Leahy No. 1455; Murphy No. 1451; Murray-Crapo No. 1368; Nelson-Wicker No. 1618; Reed No. 1223; Reed No. 1608; Schatz-Kirk No. 1416; Shaheen-Ayotte No. 1272; Stabenow-Collins No. 1405; Toomey No. 1236; Udall of New Mexico No. 1241; and Udall of New Mexico No. 1242.

Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments. But I am thinking of Shakespeare, ``I came here not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.'' Unfortunately these amendments have been buried by the objection.

I would note that yesterday we offered 17 Republican amendments and 15 Democratic amendments to be voted on. That was objected to. Those were offered by the distinguished majority leader. It is frustrating.

I know we are about to go to executive session. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, have 2 minutes before the executive session.