Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar, under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, first, let me say that I am glad to see the successful discharge of Steven Dettelbach's nomination. I have known him since he was a detailee for the Department of Justice to the Judiciary Committee. I found him one of the hardest working, most talented, honest, and evenhanded people I knew. I was happy to support him for U.S. attorney in Ohio. I can understand why so many law enforcement organizations backed him because of his values there. I will have more to say when he is confirmed, but it is a good move. Nomination of Beth Robinson Madam President, Vermonters are no strangers to making history, and in November 2021, one Vermonter in particular made history again: the U.S. Senate confirmed Beth Robinson to a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She assumed her seat on that bench days later. I could not be more proud. Vermont has one seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, so we always try to send our best. Judge Robinson embodies Vermont's values: her commitment to justice and equality and her compassion for her fellow human beings. She has also proven to be an exceptional jurist, one dedicated to the rule of law above all else. There should be no doubt that she brings that same excellence to Vermont's single seat on the Second Circuit, as a successor to my dear friend, the late Judge Peter Hall. Since Vermonters first elected me to the U.S. Senate, I have worked hard to ensure that Vermont's best and brightest represent our State on the Federal judiciary. In 2004, I recommended Judge Hall, then Vermont's U.S. Attorney and a Republican, to serve on the Second Circuit because he was the most qualified. During his 17-year tenure on the panel, Judge Hall was a fine jurist. He was fair and kind to all litigants before him, and was always humble. His passing, at just age 72, was a loss to not just Vermont, but also to the Federal judiciary at large. In 2009, I proudly recommended Christina Reiss to be a judge for the District Court of Vermont. We have a very small district court with a State of our size. With her confirmation, Judge Reiss became the first woman to serve on the District Court of Vermont. And, like Judge Hall, she has served as a model of fairness and impartiality on the bench ever since. Judge Robinson is a trailblazer herself. As a tireless champion for LGBTQ rights, she successfully litigated the landmark Baker v. Vermont decision, which led to Vermont becoming the first ever State to enact civil unions in the United States. Beth's advocacy served as a blueprint for the successful advancement of LGBTQ rights across the country, securing her place as one of the first pioneers in the national movement for LGBTQ rights. Her smart and steady approach and her unimpeachable reputation won her allies across the political spectrum in Vermont. In 2011, she was appointed by Governor Peter Shumlin to serve as a justice on the Vermont Supreme Court--that is a five-member court--a position to which she was confirmed unanimously by the Vermont Senate. She became the first openly gay Vermont Supreme Court justice, breaking yet another barrier. Now, today, Judge Robinson is the first openly gay female judge to serve in our Federal circuit courts. While on the Vermont Supreme Court, Judge Robinson seamlessly traded her advocate's cap for that of an impartial jurist. She is a consensus builder. Her unwavering commitment to the neutral application of the law was second-to-none on the Vermont Supreme Court; it is a commitment I know she brings with her to the Second Circuit. When I recommended to President Biden that he nominate Beth Robinson to the Second Circuit, there was such an outpouring of support from all corners of Vermont. The membership of the Vermont Supreme Court-- justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican Governors--signed a strong letter of support for her nomination. They were joined by prominent Republicans and Democrats from all around the State, underscoring just how widely respected she was for her reputation as an impartial and independent jurist. When Judge Robinson was confirmed in the Senate with bipartisan support, I celebrated. Judge Robinson is a Vermonter who has dedicated her life to the causes of justice and equality. She is a Vermonter who embodies our State's highest ideals, who brings fairness, independence, and integrity on the Second Circuit. Next week, along the shores of Lake Champlain, friends, family, State leaders, fellow lawyers, and many more Vermonters will gather to celebrate the investiture of Vermont's newest judge on the Second Circuit. Vermonters can be assured that Judge Robinson will continue to be guided by the same principles that have brought her this far. Marcelle and I are two Vermonters who are proud that, once again, we are breaking barriers and making history, now with the investiture of Judge Beth Robinson on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the passage of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022, or PACT Act, is an example of what can happen when the Congress puts aside partisanship and comes together for the good of the country and, importantly, our veterans. Each of us, in every State and in every congressional district across the country, has a friend, a neighbor, or a constituent, a veteran, or an Active-Duty servicemember, who has become sick or died from exposure to toxics while serving in the military. And for too many of those people, recognition of the connection between their illnesses and toxic exposures came too late. Early in my time in the Senate, I heard from Vietnam veterans who were sickened by exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange. Too many of these veterans died before Congress pushed the Department of Veterans Affairs to recognize and treat their illnesses or compensate them for the disability caused by our own government's use of such a toxic substance throughout Vietnam and in other parts of Southeast Asia. I hoped we would have learned from our mistakes there. I hoped we would learn from the veterans and civilians who suffered from radiation exposure when we tested the atomic bomb. I hoped we would learn from the veterans who came home from the first Gulf War with unexplained illnesses. But just a few years ago, I watched my dear friend, BG Mike Heston, ravaged by pancreatic cancer, fight for the VA and the Department of Defense to acknowledge that his cancer was caused by exposure to the burn pits that had been used during his tours in Afghanistan. Mike served as a Vermont State trooper for 26 years and for 33 years in the military, including in the Marine Corps Reserve and the Vermont National Guard. He served his State and his country without question. When he got sick, he should not have had to spend his precious remaining time fighting for the government to acknowledge what caused his illness. But Mike did fight. Mike fought to ensure that his family, his two wonderful children, Kelsey and Keegan, would be cared for if he succumbed to his illness. He and his wife June also fought to make sure that other veterans would not have to endure what they did, that they might get an earlier diagnosis, that they might not have to spend any of their precious moments fighting for the benefits they earned. After Mike passed away in 2018, June continued and expanded the fight. Joining her in Vermont were Staff Sergeant Wesley Black, who died last year of colon cancer at the age of 36, leaving behind his wife Laura and son Ronan; Pat Cram, widow of Sergeant Major Mike Cram, who died of prostate cancer at the age of 47; and many others who through their experience with friends or loved ones were determined to make sure that things would be better for those who followed. As we stand here today prepared to enact one of the most sweeping packages of veterans benefits and healthcare measures in modern history, I am thinking of Mike and June, of Kelsey and Keegan, of Mike and Pat, and of Wesley and Laura and Ronan. And I know that each Senator voting yes today is thinking of people in their States and districts who are sick or who have died as a result of exposure to toxics while serving our country. Their stories are meaningful, and they, themselves, ensured that their sacrifice is meaningful, too. And I hope that this time we will learn from our experiences with toxic substances and hold the Department of Defense to a higher standard in the future.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is hard really to know where to start. I am here on the Senate floor to talk about guns. In a world in chaos, we cannot forget about the chaos right here at home. Gun violence is killing our children: 19 students and two of their teachers in Uvalde 2 weeks ago; 20 children, and 7 others, in Newtown, CT--nearly 10 years ago; 12 students and a teacher at Columbine--23 years ago. In between? Las Vegas, 58 dead; the Pulse nightclub, 49 dead; Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, 17 dead--all victims of gun violence. And this is just a snapshot of the epidemic of gun violence in our country. I look back at my 48 years here in the Senate and say, When will we say enough? We hadn't yet finished honoring and celebrating the lives of the 10 victims in Buffalo before news broke of the tragedy unfolding in Uvalde--19 children, 2 teachers, massacred in their school, where they learn and work, where they should be safe--safe to just be children. This weekend, at least a dozen people were killed and 60 more injured in shooting incidents across the country. When is it enough? After Sandy Hook, well over decade after Columbine shook the Nation, the conscience of the country was stirred. Now, we said, now we must look at our gun laws. Now, we must think about what simply makes sense and what does not. The Judiciary Committee acted. I was proud to lead that, but the Senate did not. There were bipartisan proposals-- proposals that I believe can muster bipartisan support again today, support that acknowledges that there is a problem and acknowledges that we can and must do something about it. The problem is not the Second Amendment. The problem is the view that the Second Amendment is itself absolute. I was in Vermont last week, and people would say to me, Of course, we pray for the victims, but we also pray that Congress will finally stand up and do something. I am with my fellow Vermonters. I am a lifelong gun owner. I was on the target shooting team at St. Michael's College in Vermont, my alma mater--earned my letter in that. Millions of other Americans like myself, lifelong gun owners, are responsible gun owners and honor Americans' rights to own firearms and choose to own firearms to defend their families, or to hunt--but not to commit battlefield-style murders. To most Americans, firearms are valued for defensive purposes and not for murder and mayhem. There are ways that we can use our common sense to keep our communities safe and keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous. Let's start with background checks. They are a quick and easy way to help accomplish that goal. There is bipartisan support to require background checks for commercial firearms sales. Now, I think we should go further, but we have to start somewhere, and commercial sales background checks are a good start; background checks would help to bring common sense back into this discussion. How about extreme risk laws, also called ``red flag'' laws? We should encourage more States to enact these laws to allow loved ones or law enforcement agencies to petition a court for an order that would temporarily prevent an individual in crisis from accessing firearms. People who are in crisis and are a danger to themselves or others should not have ready access to firearms. This, again, is practical common sense. We have seen where criminal gangs will send people into other States to make straw purchases of weapons that are then sold back to them. There is no criminal statute specifically prohibiting straw purchasing, so prosecutors have to rely on laws that prohibit making false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm--a paperwork offense. There is bipartisan agreement that we should strengthen the penalties for straw purchasers to deter this dangerous conduct. This, again, is practical common sense. We should also add common sense and consistency to minimum age requirements to purchase guns. You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. You also have to be 21 to purchase alcohol or even cigarettes. But under our Federal laws? Just 18 to buy a shotgun or rifle, including an automatic rifle like those used on battlefields, like the ones used in Buffalo and Uvalde. And if we cannot find enough common ground to ban military-style assault rifles, we should at least raise the age at which they can be purchased from 18 to 21. All of these proposals are practical common sense; they should be the least that Congress can do to help prevent the next mass shooting. But we have a problem. We have a problem in the United States when the leading cause of childhood death in 2020 was firearms. Think of that. Our children and our grandchildren--and the leading cause of death is firearms. We have a problem when we cannot stand up--and together--to respond to the fears of our children. We have a problem when we cannot push aside the interests of the NRA and the gun industry or of the Gun Owners of America or other pressure groups that tell us that Democrats are ``coming for your guns.'' Of course, some of the gun industry will say that because it boosts their sales. It boosts their sales, and children die. I am a Democrat. I am a gun owner. I have been both, nearly my entire life. I have also been a prosecutor and prosecuted cases and went to death scenes at 3 in the morning and seeing people shot. I am also parent and a grandparent. I am a U.S. Senator. I am the Dean of the Senate, and I am a proud Vermonter. In my home State, we have a long tradition, dating back to our founding, of hunting the land. Ownership of our firearms is part of that. I have also heard from more than 1,000 Vermonters since Uvalde, urgently telling me that something must be done. When is it enough? Everywhere Marcelle and I went last week in Vermont, we heard, When is enough enough? I have spent months--or actually years--listening to my friends on the Republican side in Congress talk about protecting children. Who will step up now and who will step in to say enough? If we are to protect our children, we must be the adults with the courage to listen to their fears and to act to alleviate them. We are the adults who must protect our children. We must protect our children. If we do nothing, we are not protecting them. This isn't about politics. This isn't about the moneyed interests of pressure groups, lobbying Congress without acknowledging the tragedies in our world today. This isn't even about you or me, Mr. President. This is about the thousands of people who are killed through gun violence every year and the countless family members forced to sorrowfully move on in their absence, saying, Why our family? Why our loved one? Why my parents? Why my children? Why my brother? Or why my sister? Why? In this, the greatest country on earth, our horrific record of gun violence. In no way is this about revoking the Second Amendment, but about applying practical common sense safeguards to help mitigate the violence. Yet again, I ask, as I have since I have been in the Senate, and the American people ask: When is it enough? When is it enough? I join those who pray for the victims, but I especially join those who pray that Congress will have the courage, Democrats and Republicans alike, to finally do something meaningful. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will speak more on this subject later this week, but I spent much of last week, both Marcelle and I did, in Vermont. It is a very peaceful State. We walk across the fields at our home, walk down the dirt road where we live, and then go to various places just meeting with people all over the State. A lot of it was in what is called Chittenden County. That is about a quarter of the State's population. That is where I was a prosecutor, State's attorney is what we called it. I made it a point during that time that if we had a violent crime, a gun crime, I would go to the scene, whether it was 3 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Some of the most violent ones were, of course, at 3 o'clock in the morning. I can still remember every single one of them like it was yesterday, but they were a tiny fraction of what we see every day. I hear people say we should pray for these children. I would say pray that the Congress has the guts to stand up and pass real gun control legislation. In Vermont, we limit the number of rounds you can have in a semiautomatic weapon during deer season. We ought to try to protect children as much as we do deer. Again, fortunately in our State, the number of murders and shootings I went to were nothing like we see today. But I have awakened in the middle of the night remembering the scenes. When you are at a murder scene and it is a child who has been murdered and it is 3 o'clock in the morning, the grieving family is there, there is no way you forget it. That is more than 50 years ago I was doing that. I can tell you exactly what each of those rooms looked like. I can tell you exactly who the person was I prosecuted for it. And I can tell you exactly how many times I prayed, Why did this have to happen and never let it happen again. As I said, I will speak further on this. I know in my State of Vermont, we do have a very large percentage of gun owners. Most of them tell me, ``Do something.'' As I said, of course, pray for the children. Pray that the Congress does the right thing with real--with real--gun control. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have long told the story of my love for Batman comics dating back to my younger years growing up in Montpelier, VT. When I was 4 years old, I would race to the Kellogg Hubbard Library in Montpelier with my latest Batman comic. As a child, reading comic books allowed me, like so many others, to broaden the expanses of my imagination. While Spider-Man and Superman are fine, I have always preferred Batman. His values, his pursuit of justice, his balance of human strength and vulnerability have always resonated with me. I would like to take a moment today to recognize a store where I have bought more than my fair share of ``The Dark Knight,'' an institution foundational to the comic-loving community in Vermont: Earth Prime Comics. Founded in 1983, Earth Prime Comics was one of Vermont's first comic book stores. It began as a shared venture between Christine Farrell and John Young, first operating out of John Young's attic in Burlington, VT. In that attic, John and Christine's extensive collection of comics quickly garnered a surprisingly large following. Earth Prime Comics soon moved into a real retail space: a converted Victorian house on Bank Street in Burlington. Requiring even more space for its growing business, Earth Prime moved to a storefront on Church Street in Burlington in 1989, a location where it has remained for 33 years. Over the past few decades, Earth Prime Comics has drawn comic book fans from across Vermont and forged a comic-loving community where all were welcome. Christine still owns Earth Prime Comics, and it has been great to see how she and her team have continued to build and shape their community to keep pace with the ever-changing comic landscape. In the years to come, I have full faith that comic lovers of all ages will continue to thumb through the pages of comics in Earth Prime Comics, as I have on so many occasions. Earth Prime Comics was recently featured in an article published earlier this year in ``Seven Days.'' I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the article, titled ``Origin Story: How Burlington's Earth Prime Comics helped unite Vermont's comic lovers,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize the Ohavi Zedek community and former Vermont Governor and U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Madeleine Kunin for their efforts to preserve and restore the Shul Mural. Painted in 1910 by Ben Zion Black, the mural was commissioned by Burlington's Lithuanian Jewish community, who had come to Vermont from the town of Kovno and its environs to escape Russian pogroms. The immigrants founded the Ohavi Zedek Synagogue in 1885 and the Chai Adam Synagogue 4 years later. It was at the latter synagogue that the Shul Mural was painted. Stretching from floor to ceiling, it depicts the Tent of the Tabernacle, as described in the Book of Numbers. The style in which it was painted was well-known to the members of Chai Adam, as it could be found in synagogues throughout Eastern Europe. Now, the Shul Mural is one of the few remaining examples of this style of painting in the world. The works which inspired it were destroyed, as part of the burning of synagogues and the extermination of millions of Eastern European Jews by the Nazis, including the decimation of Lithuania's Jewish population. In Burlington, the Ohavi Zedek and Chai Adam synagogues merged in 1939. Chai Adam was sold. The building went through multiple uses and in 1986 the mural was covered with a false wall to protect it at the urging of Jeffrey Potash, a historian and Ohavi Zedek's archivist. In 2012, the building was sold once again. The new owner agreed to donate the mural to Ohavi Zedek and efforts began to move the mural, a massive undertaking that was successfully completed in 2015. Since then, work has been underway to fully restore the painting. The relocation and restoration of the mural were a significant undertaking, with costs exceeding $1 million. The funding came from foundations, historic preservation groups, arts organizations, and individuals. Governor Kunin, herself a Jewish immigrant, lent her leadership skills to the effort, chairing the Friends of the Mural Board. Governor Kunin's parents were German Jews who fled to Switzerland, where her father died. Her mother brought Madeleine and her brother, Edgar, to the United States to escape the Nazis when Madeleine was 6 years old and Edgar 10. Although her immediate family survived the Holocaust, Governor Kunin lost extended family in the concentration camps. She is fond of saying both she and the mural are survivors. Despite having arrived in the United States at a time of rising nativism, racism, and anti-Semitism, the families which had originally arrived from Lithuania continued to encourage their friends and former neighbors to follow them. At its peak, the community had more than a thousand members in Burlington. That community produced leaders in a number of fields, including Robert Larner, a physician who treated soldiers at Guadalcanal and Okinawa, and for whom Vermont's only medical school is now named, and Ed Colodny, the former CEO of U.S. Air. While the story of Burlington's Lithuanian Jewish community is unique, it is also a perfect example of what immigrants have brought and continue to bring to the United States. They enrich our country and society by sharing their art, their culture, and their experience. The story of the Shul Mural, the people who commissioned and created it, and those who ensured its preservation for future generations, is a Jewish story, an immigrant story, and a quintessentially American story.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a person wandering up Church Street or jogging down on the shores of Lake Champlain on a crisp, snowy day in Burlington, VT, this past winter could have glanced up at the sky and seen an angular, white aircraft gliding through the air. It is called the Alia and is an electric aircraft modeled after an Artic tern that has been designed and manufactured by Beta Technologies. At their headquarters, located beside the Burlington International Airport in South Burlington, Beta Technologies has been ``quietly'' revolutionizing the aviation industry by designing an environmentally friendly, rechargeable, and, yes, quiet, electric aircraft that can vertically take off and land without a runway. It is incredible technology that has game-changing applications for the domestic shipping industry, private transportation, and the military. Their research, production, and testing has been supported by dozens of private investors, several public companies, and funding appropriated by the Appropriations Committee to the Air Force's AFWERX Agility Prime program. The Agility Prime program was launched in 2020 in an effort to encourage private commercial development of the electric vertical takeoff and landing--eVTOL--aircraft industry. I am proud of the innovative work that Beta Technologies does in Vermont. The company employs a workforce of over 350 employees and is growing, employing veterans, pilots, engineers, and technicians. The company is enriching the engineering and technology community of Vermont. I am excited about the potential for Beta's aircrafts and look forward to supporting their work in the future. On April 16, 2022, The New York Times published an article on the innovative work of Beta Technologies, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many hoped that President Giammattei would reject the corruption and impunity that his predecessors institutionalized. The reappointment of Attorney General Porras, who according to the State Department has ``repeatedly obstructed and undermined anti-corruption investigations,'' shows that it is business as usual. Democracy cannot survive without an independent judiciary, which Attorney General Porras has sought to dismantle by persecuting prosecutors and judges who have stood up for the principle that no one is above the law. As long as this continues, Guatemala's government is not a serious anti-corruption partner of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the ways you try to save money is, again, not with rhetoric but with reality. I would urge everybody to join with us on both sides of the aisle who are working to get our appropriations bills together so we can reflect the actual needs and go forward with that. Again, rhetoric is easy; reality is a tad more difficult. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object--and I will--I think back over the years to some of the debates. I remember, during the Reagan administration, when we heard so many speeches from President Reagan and his supporters on how they had to balance the budget. He did this at a time when he doubled and tripled the national debt, all the time telling everybody how they were balancing the budget. Then I heard the objections to President Clinton's budget, saying that it didn't do the wonderful things that the Reagan budget did even though, of course, it gave the United States the first surplus it had had in decades. Every so often, reality catches up with rhetoric, and because of that, I object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, if the Senator from Florida's bill were to pass, it would make routine domestic spending bills nearly impossible to be passed in the U.S. Senate, freezing spending at current levels. I worry that the Senator from Florida believes the false impression that inflation does not impact the millions of Americans who benefit from nondefense discretionary programs. These are people who have to go to work every single day and try to figure out if they are going to have enough money to put groceries on their table. This bill would make things worse for the American people, not better. As an example, this year, the cost of the veterans medical care system is expected to grow by $21 billion. We have all heard the patriotic speeches of how we stand behind our veterans when they answer the call, but I wonder how many VA hospitals and clinics in Florida would have to be closed if this proposal were to be approved. I know there are a lot all over the country that would have to be closed. Natural gas costs have grown by 35 percent this year. Do any of us who may be from a State where the weather can get warm want to tell our constituents who rely on the LIHEAP program to cool their homes ``No, you don't need air conditioning because the money is not going to be there''? If Florida is struck by another hurricane this summer and the Senator from Florida's constituents look to FEMA for fuel, food, and water, will the Senator tell his constituents ``Sorry. Inflation was too high. You are on your own. We can't respond to that emergency''? In 2017, Members on the other side of the aisle lined up to vote for a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthy--a tax cut that I believe has contributed to the inflation we now see in the country. There is nothing in this request to roll back those tax cuts. So I object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the horrors we have witnessed in the weeks and months following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine are an abomination and an affront to all civilized people--entire communities wiped from the face of the earth; countless lives ruined; unarmed civilians summarily executed randomly in the street; millions of desperate people fleeing everything they have ever known because of one man's zeal to destroy whatever is necessary to realize his own twisted vision of the world--all of this while fueling a broader humanitarian crisis across the region, spiraling costs, and sparking a global hunger crisis. The need is clear for this Congress to act decisively and to act now to reaffirm our unwavering support for the Ukrainian people in protecting their lives and their country and to stem this global crisis. The United States stands against the atrocities inflicted upon the free people of Ukraine, an independent country with a democratically elected government. Last Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 7691, providing more than $40 billion in emergency funding, with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Senate should have done the same, sending this bill to the President so that he could immediately execute on it and get this much-needed aid into Ukrainian hands. Unfortunately, one Member has decided to slow this process down. One Member has caused needless delay. In a few moments, we will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 7691. Because of Senator Paul's objection, we must go through this step just to bring up the bill for debate. I urge everyone to vote yes. And I would urge the Senator from Kentucky to reconsider his objections and help us move quickly to get this bill to the President. This emergency bill provides $40.1 billion--$7.1 billion more than the administration requested--in critical military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, to help defend democracy abroad and to address the rising, global hunger crisis that the world is facing in large part due to Russia's aggression. This includes $8.5 billion in additional Presidential drawdown authority for critical weapons transfers and $6 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This will allow us to continue to supply the Ukrainians with the tools they need to defend themselves, their country, and their freedom. The urgent need for these resources cannot be overstated. As we stand here today, the administration is raising the alarm that if we do not act, the resources we provided in March--which have been critical to Ukraine's success on the battlefield--will be exhausted in a matter of days. It includes more than $8.5 billion for the economic support fund to respond to emerging needs in the country and ensure the continuing operation of the government. It provides needed resources for temporary housing, medical care, food, and other basic services for Ukrainian's displaced in their own country and refugees fleeing the violence and devastation Vladimir Putin has inflicted on them and their communities. The humanitarian crisis instigated at the hands of Vladimir Putin is not limited to within Ukraine's borders or even within the borders of Eastern Europe. It has triggered a global hunger crisis. Last year, before Putin's war, Ukraine grew enough food to feed 400 million people. Today, Ukraine cannot even feed its own people. As David Beasley, the Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme--WFP-- testified before the Appropriations Committee last week, war has forced Ukraine from being a global bread basket to being on the bread lines. Tens of millions of tons of wheat, barley, maize, vegetable oil, and other Ukrainian produce are currently locked in warehouses and languishing in ports occupied by Russian forces. If the ports are not opened, this food will either be stolen or go to waste, leading to skyrocketing prices and regional shortages. The WFP estimates that this will have a ripple effect, increasing the number facing acute hunger by 47 million. This would bring the estimated global total to 323 million people suffering from acute hunger in the 81 countries WFP operates in alone. It is important to remember that hunger is not a moment in time; it has lasting consequences for families, communities, and whole societies. This is why we cannot wait to act on this crisis. As noted in one recent Washington Post editorial; preventing a looming, global famine is ``as urgent and morally necessary as sending tanks to Ukraine.'' This bill provides over $5 billion for global food aid. If those funds are programmed quickly, they will save millions of lives. Vladimir Putin's war is exacerbating a global crisis of food insecurity already set in motion by the COVID pandemic and successive years of severe drought in Africa. I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not include new resources to address the ongoing COVID pandemic. Last week, we passed the grim toll of 1 million recorded COVID deaths in our country and estimates as high as 20 million deaths worldwide. If we fail to prepare for anticipated surges in the fall and winter, as immunity from existing vaccines wanes and the virus continues to mutate, the death toll will rise, potentially exponentially. For months--for months--the administration has warned that we do not have the necessary vaccines, therapeutics, tests, and other resources to stay ahead of this virus. We do not have enough funding to purchase new shots for everybody in the fall, and we already will be forced to ration the next generation of vaccines--more suited to variants like Omicron--to only those at the highest risk. This is not a problem that can be solved by flipping a switch. We cannot just say that we will appropriate the money later in the fall if it is needed. In order to produce the tens of millions of doses of vaccine that will be necessary, biotech companies need to begin to purchase supplies and start production before July. This means we only have weeks to provide the funding to secure these shots in time. The same can be said of our testing capacity. Unless we act, domestic manufacturing will continue to shut down, shifting production to countries like China. This will leave us flat-footed once again should another COVID variant wave crash over our country in the fall. The virus traveled to this country from abroad, and that is where new variants have also originated. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which manages our global response to the COVID pandemic, has obligated 95 percent of the funds they have available. They are running on fumes, and they will have no choice but to start shutting down their vaccine delivery operations if additional funds are not forthcoming soon. That means more mutations, more variants, more infections, and more death. It is extremely frustrating that, time and again, Members on the other side of the aisle have pushed this responsibility off. We are out of time. We cannot defeat this virus with complacency or by burying our heads in the sand. It remains a global health emergency. According to the experts, it is entirely possible that we have not seen the worst yet. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for these urgently needed resources in the coming weeks. However, the people of Ukraine and the millions facing acute food insecurity require the funds in this bill today, and I strongly urge the Senate to pass it without further delay. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my statement prior to the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. If I might say, the Senator was absolutely right. He was central in putting that together. Unfortunately, it passed here; would have passed the House. They had enough votes--enough votes, Republicans and Democrats. But the then- Speaker said he couldn't bring it up because it didn't have a majority of his party and it would violate the sacred Dennis Hastert rule. I don't think they follow that rule after former-Speaker Hastert went to jail.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is a historic day. Today, each Member of the Senate will have the opportunity to cast a vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I say ``historic'' because throughout our Nation's history, only 115 people have served on the Supreme Court. Until now, only five of the Supreme Court Justices have been women. Only two of the Justices have been Black. And none has been a Black woman. So history, indeed, and long overdue. But I am not going to cast my vote in support of Judge Jackson's confirmation because she is a woman or because she is Black; I will cast that vote because she is eminently qualified to serve in the position to which she has been nominated. Her nomination shouldn't just be welcomed; it should be celebrated. It is a major step forward for our democracy. It is further widening the lens to help make our Nation more inclusive and more representative with each passing generation. She is one of the most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court that I have ever considered in my 48 years here: a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School; a judicial clerk at the district, circuit, and Supreme Court levels; a Federal appellate judge; a Federal district court judge; a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission; an attorney in private practice. And she will be the first ever Justice who has served as a public defender, bringing that much needed perspective to the Court. No one--no one--can argue that Judge Jackson is not objectively qualified to be confirmed. The manufactured accusations that were thrown at her by some of our committee during our hearings not only fell flat, but they have been refuted and debunked by serious voices across the political spectrum. They hold no water. They serve only to showcase the vitriol and the contempt with which some Members of this body approach their sacred constitutional role of advice and consent. I said it during the hearings, and I will say it again: It is distressing, it is disheartening, and as the dean of the Senate, it is saddening. Yet I find hope in the fact that Judge Jackson's confirmation to our highest Court will have the bipartisan support it deserves and it commands. I commend the Republican Senators who have lauded her qualifications and staked their support of her nomination. Judge Jackson has earned the President's nomination, and she has earned confirmation from the Senate. Each and every day, millions of American families are living their lives, and how they live those lives--from the salaries they make to the education their children receive and scores of issues in between-- is directly impacted by the decisions made at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court--in fact, all of our courts can't be ivory towers, accessible only to and bending to the will of a select few in our society. They have to be accountable to all--all--all Americans. To do so, they must reflect the diversity of our Nation, the diversity that is at the foundation of our democracy--diversity of gender, of race, of creed, of education and history--but also diversity of thought and life experiences. Judge Jackson brings that and more to the Bench. Mr. President, I am proud to be the President pro tempore of the Senate, and I was proud to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee in the past. In that regard, I voted for the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. I voted for the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. I voted on thousands of judicial nominations, nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I voted for nominations to the Supreme Court who were put forward by Republican Presidents. I have long lamented the increasing political gamesmanship that has infected our current confirmation process, and many times on this floor, I have warned about the dire consequences for our courts and for our democracy of converting our confirmation process into a zero-sum game where one party wins and one party loses. But to change that gamesmanship requires that we have some adults in the room, that we all come here to the floor of the U.S. Senate not to score a headline or a trending tweet but simply to do our jobs. There are only 100 of us to represent this whole country. So who is going to do that today, simply do their job? I have taken a clear look at Judge Jackson's record. I heard her testimony 2 weeks ago. I met with her. I read opinions that she has written. I spent hours listening to her. I saw her intellect, her humility, and her temperament on full display. Mr. President, she is the Justice we need now. For America today, for the generations to come, for our children and our grandchildren, for all of us, I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Jackson, and I will do it proudly. I hope the Senate can rise to this moment. I hope it can be the deliberative body the Founders envisioned when they conceived of this great experiment. Our independent judiciary--in fact, our democracy-- demands it of us. Mr. President, history will remember the votes cast here today. I will proudly vote aye. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, among the many barbaric atrocities committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine where civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings have been repeatedly bombed and shelled and countless civilians have been summarily executed in the streets, the New York Times reports today that the Russians are using a new kind of landmine. This mine, called the POM-3, is inherently indiscriminate like other mines in that it cannot distinguish between a civilian and a combatant, and it is apparently equipped with a sensor that triggers the explosive when a person approaches. With a kill radius of 50 feet, it is even more deadly than a typical anti-personnel mine. And, unlike typical landmines, it cannot be disarmed by a human deminer because anyone who approaches it is likely to become a victim before reaching it. So it will be necessary to use robots to clear these mines, at great additional time and expense. As in other countries affected by armed conflict, it will be many years and almost certainly decades after the fighting ends, before the people of Ukraine can walk safely without fear of mines and other unexploded ordnance. Human beings seem to have an unlimited capacity to devise new ways of destroying the lives of others. Landmines are especially insidious because they maim or kill whoever comes into contact with them, or, in the case of the POM-3, whosever's footsteps it detects. It could be anyone, including a young child. No matter how ``sophisticated'' the technology, mines are an exceedingly primitive weapon because they are designed to be indiscriminate in an age of so-called precision munitions. Mines are the opposite. While landmines are so easy to make that it will never be possible to completely eliminate them, in 1997, the international community took an historic step, thanks in large part to the leadership of former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and the tireless advocacy of the International Campaign to Ban landmines. In December of that year, countries came together to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty. Today, the treaty has 164 states parties. But one of the reasons anti-personnel mines have yet to be universally stigmatized is because key countries including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the United States have not joined the treaty. Of course, when one country joins a treaty, it does not guarantee that others will. But the more countries that do, the harder it is for others to fail to do so, as they become the outliers, the pariahs. So if the United States, which has not used anti-personnel mines since 1991, were to join the treaty it would not guarantee that Russia would. But it would greatly enhance our credibility to call out their use of mines, their devastating effects on innocent civilians, and the need to universalize the treaty. In 1994, President Clinton, at the United Nations, called for ridding the world of anti-personnel mines. He also directed the Pentagon to develop alternatives. They never did. While we can drive a robot on Mars 100 million miles away, our own military continues to stockpile landmines that are triggered by the victim. Whether a U.S. soldier or a child, our landmines, like Russian landmines, cannot tell the difference. If anything good can come of this catastrophic and senseless war in Ukraine, it would be for the international community to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and for the United States to once and for all renounce the use of anti-personnel landmines. These are not weapons that belong in the arsenals of civilized nations and certainly not in the arsenal of the most powerful, modern military on Earth. Let us be the country that not only denounces their use in Ukraine, but denounces and renounces their use everywhere. What a gift to the world that would be. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article entitled ``New Russian Land Mine Poses Special Risk in Ukraine'' be printed in the Record.