Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the distinguished senior Senator from Florida has done the Senate and the country a service in what he has said. We each represent our own States. We have matters of interest in our States, but also so many times they are national interests. During this past recess, I was in just about every part of Vermont. I was stopped time and time again by Vermont farmers who asked me why Congress left town without passing a farm bill. They knew we had passed it in the Senate, but why hadn't we finished? Similar to my fellow Vermonters, I have been frustrated by the refusal of the leadership of the House of Representatives to consider the legislation sent to them by the Senate to extend the farm bill. In fact, they blocked consideration of a bipartisan farm bill, one that mirrors the legislation passed in their own body by the House Agriculture Committee. I have been here nearly 38 years. I have served on the Senate Agriculture Committee all that time. I have never seen a case where the House Agriculture Committee--whether it is led by Democrats or by Republicans--passed a bipartisan farm bill only to see it blocked from a final vote by its own leadership. The Senate has done its work, but as a result of the House's inaction, for the first time that anybody can remember in either body, the farm bill has expired. This is dangerous for dairy farmers in Vermont and for farmers across the country. This delay threatens our rural communities. We all have rural communities in our States. The farmers not only need but also deserve the certainty that a 5-year farm bill provides. We pass farm bills in 5-year segments so that farmers, who have to plan way in the future, know how to plan. We can't say: Wait a minute, put your farming on hold while we try to get our act together. Don't milk those cows for a few months while we try to figure out what we are going to do. Don't plant or don't harvest that crop while we are trying to figure out what we are going to do. It doesn't work that way. The farmers already confront enough uncertainty running their businesses. When we let farm programs expire without enacting a new farm bill, it needlessly compounds that uncertainty and it is irresponsible. Decisions must by made today to determine what is going to be planted next spring. But now they have to make that decision with uncertainty about what may be in the farm bill. The essential nutrition programs in the farm bill provide healthy food for vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant and nursing women. Vermonters, like tens of millions of people across the country, depend upon these programs where they are struggling to put enough food on their table during these very tough economic times. Some of these program benefits will continue. But it is such a tenuous position. How does a State plan? How does a community plan? We need the House leadership to allow the farm bill to proceed so we can move this country forward, giving farmers the certainty and vulnerable citizens the security they deserve. The Senate farm bill is a good, bipartisan bill. But more than that, it is a deficit reduction bill. It has $23 billion in cost savings as well as crucial policy reforms for dairy farmers facing the challenges of the 21st century. It also maintains a safety net for millions of hungry Americans. The wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth has people going hungry. In a nation that spends billions of dollars on fad diet programs or billions of dollars to dispose of waste food, we should not have hungry people. Not in this country. I also point out the farm bill has always been bipartisan. I remember the hard work, mutual respect, and spirit of cooperation that Senator Dick Lugar and I shared. We worked together as Agriculture Committee chairman and ranking member. We put American farmers and families first and politics last. My good friend from Indiana and I were able to accomplish amazing things together. Obviously, we had some differences of opinion as Members of different regions and different parties do. But we knew we had to work together. We did, and America benefited from that. Certainly our farmers did too. The need to work together is as true today as it was then. It is going to take real leadership in the House and Senate to pass a farm bill. We have seen that leadership and bipartisanship in the Senate. Having served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for 8 years, I can say without any doubt that Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow has been one of the finest chairs we have had of that committee. I have watched how hard she has worked and how hard Ranking Member Pat Roberts has worked. He brought his tremendous experience and knowledge through his time as chairman of the House agriculture Committee. In fact, in the debate over the Senate farm bill--and I commend Senator Stabenow on this--seated around that table we had several people who had previously been chairman or ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. In fact, even one Senator who had been Secretary of Agriculture. We all said: We can play games, we can talk, we can posture, we can sloganeer or we can sit down like grownups and put together a real farm bill. It took a nanosecond to decide we can be grownups and put together a real farm bill. Republicans and Democrats sat down. We wrote a deficit- reducing, meaningful farm bill, and it passed in a Senate which is often deadlocked. It passed 64-35. It passed overwhelmingly--from all parts of the country and across the political spectrum. Senator Johanns, former Secretary of Agriculture during the Bush administration, sat around that table and helped us write it. That shows how bipartisan the approach to reauthorizing the farm bill was in the Senate. We did not let political labels get in the way of what was best for the country. The elections are over. We know who has won or lost. We hope our friends in the other body, in the House of Representatives, will set aside their obstructionism and pass this bill. I am pleased by the fact that our State's Congressman, Peter Welch, is a member of that committee. He has been urging both Republicans and Democrats to pass the bill, and I agree with him because it is a bill that directly affects every farm family's budget. It helps farmers decide which crops to plant, where to sell, how much to borrow. It allows farmers to make their decisions--which are hard enough to make without this delay--with some kind of certainty. The farm bill affects Vermonters and Americans across the country where there is food insecurity and uncertainty in these difficult times. One of the things people lose sight of is that the farm bill is also a disaster relief bill. We need the new farm bill to help farmers in the Garden State and across the entire Nation to recover from the nonstop floods of 2012. We need it to help those across the Nation who are stuck on the other side of the weather spectrum, with drought. That is all in this bill. Because we know, as much as we wish there would never be floods, as much as we wish there would never be droughts, they occur. We have written that into this bill. Why in heaven's name would anybody, from any part of the country--and we are all vulnerable at one time or another--want to hold it up? The fact is things are going to get worse very quickly if we begin the new year without a farm bill. Outdated parity price systems will multiply the price of milk on store shelves. It will destroy household pocketbooks and the milk market nationally. Let me reiterate that. Certainly in my State this is very important. If we don't pass the bill, we will have outdated parity price systems that will multiply the price of milk on the store shelves and will destroy household pocketbooks and the milk market nationally. Ask anybody who lives paycheck to paycheck what that would be like. So I urge the leadership in the House of Representatives to allow open debate on the Senate-passed farm bill. They don't have to have a bill that is word for word what we passed here in the Senate, but I point out that the Senate bill saves billions of dollars, it does have a dairy program, and it does speak to disaster, drought, and flood relief. We need it now. Let us stand with our dairy farmers in Vermont, our eggplant growers in New Jersey, and our hungry families across the country. Let's set the political gamesmanship aside, help America's farmers, families, and rural communities that all rely on the farm bill. The people in these communities, the farmers in these communities, do not care whether there is a Democrat or Republican's name on the bill. All they know is they want a good farm bill that allows them to stay in farming. Farming is hard enough as it is. None of us has to do the farming. We ought to stand up and help--that we can do.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on August 25, 2012, the United States and the world lost one of its most creative thinkers and problem solvers. Roger D. Fisher, Williston Professor of Law at Harvard University and coauthor of ``Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In,'' the most widely read book ever written on the subject, was 90 years old. Roger Fisher was a pioneer and a giant in the field of negotiation. He not only changed the way people think about dispute resolution, inspiring and mentoring countless students who have gone on to use his teachings in their own careers, he applied his theories to real-life conflicts from South America to the Middle East. I had the good fortune to meet Roger and was struck by his affable manner and big smile, his inquisitive mind, and, perhaps above all, his enthusiasm for devising creative ways to help others solve seemingly intractable problems and in doing so make the world a better place. No conflict was too big or too small. He had imaginative, thoughtful approaches to everything, from ending the Vietnam war to resolving an argument among siblings at the family dinner table. Roger was a gifted advocate. He had a brilliant mind and an extraordinary ability to persuade. But, as others have said, ``he taught that conflict was not simply a `zero-sum' game in which a fixed pie is simply divided through haggling or threats.'' Rather, it was about how one approaches the problem, recognizing the other side's needs, understanding their interests, and in doing so maximizing outcomes for both sides. That was the genius of the ``without giving in'' part of ``Getting to Yes.'' While some might assume he meant getting one's way at another's expense, Roger recognized that is rarely possible or desirable, and it is often not necessary for a good result. But he also saw how lacking in the basic analytical and practical tools of negotiation most people are. I often think of Roger when I see the House and Senate so polarized and incapable of the positive, creative thinking and compromise that are necessary to deal effectively with issues of importance to our constituents, to the country, and to the world. ``Getting to Yes'' should be mandatory reading for every Member of Congress. It contains invaluable lessons for the job the American people sent us here to do. I want to express my condolences to Roger's two sons, Elliot and Peter. Elliot Fisher lives in Vermont, is a respected physician at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and a leading voice for health policy reform. Peter Fisher has had a distinguished career in finance, including at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and as an Under Secretary of the Treasury. I have no doubt they both have put to good use the lessons of their father. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an obituary in the Economist about Roger Fisher.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it was more than 40 years ago when two young prosecutors, one from the biggest city in Pennsylvania and one from a smaller town in rural Vermont, came together at an annual meeting of the National District Attorneys Association in Philadelphia. Little did Arlen Specter and I know then that we would spend 30 years working together in the United States Senate, building on our bond as former prosecutors, seeking to bridge the partisan divide, and striving to find common ground on some of the most contentious issues of our time. Arlen Specter's public service began during the Korean War. When elected to serve as Philadelphia's District Attorney, he led landmark prosecutions against public corruption and to rid his city's streets of some of the country's most hardened criminals. He was a prosecutor's prosecutor. Arlen Specter also was a Senator's Senator. He loved the Constitution, he loved and honored the institutions of our democracy, and he loved policymaking and the political process. As a Senator he tried to put the interests of the Nation and the Senate's special role in our system above partisanship while always representing and serving the people of Pennsylvania. He believed in aggressive oversight of government agencies, regardless of the administration's affiliation, from our bipartisan investigation of the shootout at Ruby Ridge, to the political firings of U.S. attorneys and the threats to civil liberties posed during the Bush administration. He reached across the aisle to partner with me to try to pass comprehensive asbestos legislation and we joined to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act during the Bush administration. He supported more transparency, in every branch of our government, to ensure the American people knew what their government was doing. He was a strong supporter of law enforcement and a vigorous and fair judicial system. And he joined with Tom Harkin to direct billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health and cancer research. His work ethic and dedication were tested when he was first diagnosed with an advanced form of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2005. Through that ordeal, Arlen kept his humor, his spirit, and his rigorous work schedule. He served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2005 and 2006. I was the ranking Democratic member of the committee during those years and worked collaboratively to make my friend a success and ensured that we treated him fairly. During those years and those that followed, when it was my turn to chair the committee and his to lead the Republican members, we used to joke that we spoke to each other more often than we spoke to our wives, Marcelle and Joan. Arlen was a fighter. I never knew anyone who worked or fought harder. I think he hoped to fight through his disease one more time. The history books will note that Arlen Specter was the longest- serving U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania history. History should remember Arlen Specter as a person who tried to do what he thought was best for the country and to challenge the ever more constricting litmus test of partisan politics. He represented Pennsylvania and served the Nation. Like the Republican Senators who have represented Vermont, Arlen is an example to all senators, of any party. He will be missed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the chair, I have a feeling I may be preaching to the converted, but let me say we, all of us, were outraged by the video denigrating the Muslim faith but then by the mob violence--some of it encouraged by al-Qaida or other extremist groups-- against our embassies and diplomats in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. Secretary of State Clinton said it well: ``The United States rejects both the content and message of that video . . . and deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.'' The Secretary and President Obama have also said, repeatedly, that there is never any justification for the violent acts that have been perpetrated against our diplomats, and they have called on the governments of those countries to protect our embassies and consulates. And of course, they are right. As far as I am aware we have received the condolences and support of the governments of these countries, as well as scores of other governments around the world. The support and sympathy expressed, not only by foreign officials but by countless citizens of these countries who have denounced the attacks on United States personnel, needs to be recognized. There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that any of these governments were responsible for, or had any involvement in, these violent demonstrations. They neither ordered nor condoned them. To the contrary, they have since taken steps to protect our facilities and personnel. That is why I am mystified by the legislation offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, Senator Paul, which would cut off aid to key U.S. allies like Israel, Indonesia and Jordan where such protests have occurred, even peaceful demonstrations, as well as security partners like Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan. On the one hand, there are some affirmations of our policy goals in the legislation that I agree with--for example, we all want those responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans in Benghazi, as well as the destruction of property there and in Cairo and elsewhere, to be brought to justice. And already, dozens of people are under arrest in those countries. But anyone who is inclined to support this legislation should read the fine print, because the way it is drafted is not only unworkable, it would serve to inflame an already dangerous situation, harming America's national security interests. For example, all aid would be cut off to governments in countries where a demonstration occurred, even a peaceful demonstration, until the government arrests everyone who participated, and until the FBI has identified everyone involved and they are all in the custody of the United States, even if we do not have extradition treaties with those countries. In other words, we would cut off aid to the governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, and India, among others, until every one of the thousands of people who participated in demonstrations in those countries has been identified by name, arrested, and brought to the United States and imprisoned. I have seen unworkable, unwise legislation before, but this may win the prize. Not only would this be a colossal waste of FBI resources, it would be impossible to implement. How is the FBI going to determine the identity of everyone who joined in these protests? Is that really what we want the FBI doing? Are we, who believe in freedom of speech, really going to fill up our prisons with thousands of foreigners, including those who have engaged in peaceful demonstrations? Does the author of this amendment have any idea how much that would cost U.S. taxpayers? Are we really going to cut off aid to the Government of Egypt, which has reaffirmed its peace agreement with Israel, sent troops against Egyptian extremists in the Sinai, deployed police to protect the U.S. embassy, and is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the IMF--with U.S. and European support--to reform its economy? Are we going to also cut off aid to Israel--which we would not do, of course? Do we really want to cut off aid to the Government of Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world and a key U.S. ally in South East Asia? And Libya, which we helped to liberate, and which has just emerged from a bloody revolution to overthrow a tyrant who posed a real threat to regional peace and security? As I said before, we are all outraged and saddened by the tragic events in Benghazi, Cairo, and elsewhere. There is no justification for it. We expect to see those responsible for the violence to be brought to justice, and we have insisted that these governments fulfill their obligation to protect our embassies, as we protect theirs. But this is no way to honor the patriotism and sacrifice of Ambassador Stevens and the others who lost their lives. We are not talking about brutal kleptocracies like the Mobutu Government of the 1980s who the junior Senator from Kentucky spoke of today. These are fledgling democracies whose people have been ruled and brutalized by corrupt dictators for decades. They are struggling to draft new constitutions, elect parliaments, reform their police, restructure their stagnant economies, and manage competing ethnic, religious and political factions, some of which have been in conflict with each other for centuries. We can punish them by cutting off our aid, even though these governments had no more to do with organizing the protests than our government had to do with producing the anti-Muslim video that is inciting the protests. That might score political points for some back home. Or we can support them in making decisions that will improve our relations and strengthen our security. Withdrawal is not an option for the United States. Isolationism is not an option. Overreacting in ways that embolden violent extremists is not an option. This amendment is poorly conceived, poorly drafted, and would have all sorts of unintended and dangerous consequences. The best message the United States Congress could send to the forces of democracy in these countries is to defeat it overwhelmingly. I believe, like so many both Democrats and Republicans who have spoken against this, it makes no sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for this resolution which reaffirms current U.S. policy towards Iran. In doing so, I want to emphasize that it is my understanding that this Resolution, which is non-binding, is in no way intended by its sponsors to endorse, authorize, or otherwise encourage the use of military force against Iran. Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Gates, and other top Pentagon officials have strongly advised against the use of pre-emptive military force. They said it would, at best, only temporarily halt Iran's nuclear program, it would drive their program further underground, and it could ignite a wider war in the Middle East that could spin out of control. I am as concerned as anyone about Iran. But while this Resolution reaffirms that concern, that is the extent of what it does. The policy of the Administration, and of our allies is to support sanctions, to use diplomacy, to resort to military force only if all other options fail. This Resolution does not change that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate Republicans' partisan obstructionism has reached a new low. There are 17 district court nominees pending before the Senate, and 12 of them would fill judicial emergency vacancies on our Federal trial courts. In an unprecedented breaking from our tradition, Senate Republicans have decided that they will recess for the election and deny almost all of these consensus nominees confirmation. Worse, they have decided to extend the delays that Americans face in our overburdened Federal courts by denying new judges to those courts. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. By denying confirmation votes to 15 of these 17 nominations, Senate Republicans are denying justice to the American people. By refusing to vote on these 15 nominations, Senate Republicans have declared that they are unconcerned about the millions of Americans who will continue to lack adequate access to our Federal courts and speedy justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the majority leader was required to take the extraordinary step of asking for unanimous consent to secure Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court nominations. Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously. However, Senate Republicans have raised the level of partisanship so that these Federal trial court nominees have now become wrapped around the axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy crisis that threatens the ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the American people, Senate Republicans now refuse to allow a vote on any of the 17 pending district court nominees, including 12 that have been declared judicial emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans' across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees that began with their filibuster of his very first nominee continues. For the first time I can recall, even district court nominees with support from Republican home State Senators face months of delay if not outright opposition from the Senate Republican leadership and Senate Republicans. The long delays and backlog we are seeing on the Federal trial courts and Senate Republicans' refusal to vote on so many consensus judicial nominees before we recess for the upcoming Presidential election are entirely without precedent. The Thurmond rule has never been applied to stop votes on consensus district court nominees. In September 2008 we reported and confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court nominees and left none on the Senate calendar as we headed into that Presidential election. In contrast, this year we are still waiting on votes for district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee in April, June, July, and August. All but 1 of these 17 district court nominees was reported with significant bipartisan support, all but 3 nearly unanimously. The partisan refusal to allow votes on consensus nominees has become standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. In each of the last 2 years, Senate Republicans refused to follow the Senate's traditional practice of clearing the calendar of noncontroversial nominees. As a result, there were 19 judicial nominees pending without a final confirmation vote at the end of 2010 and another 19 left without a vote at the end of 2011. Due to this latest refusal to consent to vote, Senate Republicans are ensuring that the Senate will recess for the election without voting on 21 judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. The result is that for the first time in decades Federal courts are likely to have more vacancies at the end of these 4 years than at the beginning of the President's term. Federal judicial vacancies have been at historically high levels for years, remaining near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the President. Judicial vacancies today are more than 2\1/2\ times as high as they were at this point in President Bush's first term, with nearly 1 out of every 11 Federal judgeships currently vacant. I urge Senator Toomey, Senator Kirk, Senator Rubio, Senator Coburn, Senator Inhofe, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe, all of whom have judicial nominees on the calendar ready for a final Senate vote, to reason with their leadership about this obstruction. I ask other Republican Senators who know better to weigh in with their leadership. This is wrong for the country, damaging to the Federal courts, and harmful for the American people looking to our courts for justice. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a column by Russell Wheeler entitled ``The Case for Confirming District Court Judges'' that appeared in Politico on Wednesday and notes the unprecedented and destructive nature of this obstruction.

Mr. LEAHY. I have served in the Senate for 37 years, and I have never seen so many judicial nominees, reported with bipartisan support, be denied a simple up-or-down vote for 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, even 11 months. And if there was any doubt that Senate Republicans insist on being the party of no, their current decision to deny votes on these highly qualified, noncontroversial district court nominees--while we are in the middle of a judicial vacancy crisis--shows what they stand for. They care more about opposing this President than helping the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next month, a distinguished member of our Armed Forces will retire. I want to recognize and congratulate GEN Craig McKinley, who has spent the last 38 years in service to our country, and who has led the National Guard through a unique period of challenge, change, and triumph. General McKinley's service began during another period of dramatic change. He received his commission as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at Southern Methodist University and entered undergraduate pilot training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1974. With the conclusion of military engagement in Vietnam, the nation's military leaders faced a number of questions, including the future role of the National Guard. These same questions would later guide General McKinley's efforts to lead the National Guard toward its current role as an operational force. General McKinley has had a distinguished career, including assignments as an instructor pilot, the commander of the 125th Fighter Wing, the commander of the 1st Air Force, and the commander of the Continental United States Region of the North American Aerospace Defense Command. He served in the U.S. European Command and as Director of the Air National Guard. These assignments culminated in General McKinley earning his fourth star as Chief of the National Guard Bureau. He did all of this while logging over 4,000 flying hours in a wide range of aircraft and earning the rating of command pilot. While I could reflect on many notable moments in General McKinley's career, I will never forget one in particular. It was November 10, 2011, when Senator Levin and Senator McCain convened an historic hearing of all six sitting Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense General Counsel, and General McKinley, to examine a proposal I had introduced to add the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Despite the arguments against this change by all six sitting Joint Chiefs, General McKinley's measured and reasonable responses won the day. Ultimately, 71 senators came to agree with General McKinley and joined as cosponsors of what is known commonly as the second National Guard Empowerment Act. This bill became law in December 2011, and General McKinley was a decisive factor in this victory for the National Guard. Without his resolve to see the almost half a million men and women of the Guard represented at the top military panel in the national command structure, we would not have triumphed. General McKinley has offered steady leadership to the Guard during a truly historic period. I am grateful to have had him as a partner. Without him, I doubt our nation would have the world-class operational reserve that we have today. Congratulations, General McKinley. Best wishes to you, Cheryl, Patrick, and Christina as you retire to civilian life.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Sunday marked the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. One year ago, I was pleased to stand on a stage at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia with House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos, Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, and others. Together, we watched President Obama sign into law the most important changes to our Nation's patent laws in 60 years. Many of the provisions of the legislation took effect on the 1-year anniversary, while other important changes, such as the shift to first- inventor-to-file, will take effect in 6 months. I commend the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, for the work they have done, in a transparent manner, to prepare for the new procedures that take effect this week. At its best, our patent system encourages exploration and invention, creating wealth, and providing jobs. Abraham Lincoln famously said that ``the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.'' But when patents are granted on unpatentable subject matter or on obvious creations already in use, they can be misused to stifle competition. The new patent law will aid the PTO in separating the wheat from the chaff, weeding out low-quality patents that infect our system, and bolstering those patents that truly advance ``the progress of science and useful arts.'' While the changes made by the patent bill were sweeping, I am under no illusion that they solved all the problems that confront our patent system. The assertion of patents is too often still used by patent trolls to extract payment even where there is not infringement of a valid patent because the cost of litigation makes settlement more expedient, and the ``tech patent wars'' among the large mobile phone companies show the perils to competition that can come when companies do not reach business-to-business resolutions of their patent disputes. But the improvements made by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will go a long way to making the system work better for inventors and implementers. Enactment of the patent bill was more than a victory for American inventors, large and small; it was a demonstration that Congress can still work in a bipartisan, bicameral matter. I stood proudly on the stage 1 year ago with a Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, watching the President sign a law on which Chairman Smith and I had worked closely together for 6 years. The legislative success of the patent bill shows what we can achieve when we put aside rhetoric and, instead, negotiate and collaborate in good faith. We held countless bipartisan, bicameral meetings, briefings, and discussions with all interested parties. We worked closely with Director Kappos, then-Secretary of Commerce Locke, and Members of Democratic and Republican leadership in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In short, the process that took the patent bill from the Congress to the President for his signature was one of which we can all be proud. In an increasingly partisan Congress, I was pleased to have the opportunity to lead a legislative process that was, from start to finish, both bipartisan and bicameral.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in introducing legislation that has already attracted broad support--from across the social and political spectrum. This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2012, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities. On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted. Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity. Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages. A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,000 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again. I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. More than 1,000 have reportedly been confined there. In February of this year, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only 4 of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried. It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals. Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common. A government commission in Cameroon reported that an average of five prisoners die per month in a prison there, simply from lack of proper medical care. Inmates in many countries suffer from HIV/AIDS and other illnesses in prisons with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population. A New York Times article described how prisoners in Zambia were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf- high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how Zambia's Prison Service conducted its own internal audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following: First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know. Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water. Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns. Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial. For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act. The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act. Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act. Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2012 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life. In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has already been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem. Identical legislation is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Chris Smith and Russ Carnahan, both of whom care deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful in this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators and two Representatives, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for her kind comments. She knows that this, whether in Washington State or the State of Vermont, is a major issue. She has voted for and supported the Leahy-Crapo bill, as has the distinguished Presiding Officer. I have said so many times on this floor that violence is violence is violence and abuse is abuse is abuse, and this should not be a partisan issue. Two weeks ago, in Tampa, Republican leaders from Congress and around the country sought to make clear their commitment to advancing causes important to women. Well, I will say as a Democrat I was pleased to see that commitment from the Republican Party. But now I hope they will put those words into action and prove that this was not just campaign rhetoric. While they have not asked me for advice, I would give some advice to my Republican friends. If they do want to show their commitment to women, one significant step Republicans should take would be to help us reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It was signed into law 18 years ago today--18 years ago today. I remember that day. I was there. As one of those who helped draft it, I was so proud to see it signed into law. This landmark bill, which fundamentally changed the way our country responds to domestic and sexual violence, expired, though, 1 year ago this month. There is no good reason why we cannot all work together to see that this lifesaving law is reauthorized immediately. It should not be a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an American issue. How can people say they are not opposed to violence against women? Just yesterday, the Republican attorney general from Utah and the Democratic attorney general from Maryland--people who have completely different philosophies--called on Congress to pass the Senate bill, which covers all victims, including immigrant women. In their guest column in Politico, the two noted that the bipartisan Senate bill would give ``a significant boost for law enforcement and public safety.'' At the same time, they said the politically charged House bill ``seeks to turn a bipartisan concern for abuse survivors into a partisan wedge'' and ``dramatically roll[s] back important protections for battered immigrant women and their children.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Politico column, along with a statement released today by Attorney General Holder on the 18th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, be printed in the Record at the end of my comments.

Mr. LEAHY. You hear these continued calls for action. We know the Leahy-Crapo reauthorization bill passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority of 68 votes. Every woman in the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--voted for it. But Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate have hidden behind a procedural technicality. They refuse to allow the House to vote on the Senate bill. Well, that obstruction has to end. Too many lives are on the line to play these political games. Here in the Senate, we have twice asked Republican leaders to agree to take up a House revenue bill, substitute the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, and send it to the House immediately to overcome this procedural concern. Each time they have refused this commonsense resolution. This contrasts how we moved forward earlier this year using the same process to overcome similar technical hurdles with both the Transportation bill and the FAA reauthorization legislation. So with a little bit of cooperation from the other side we could move VAWA now. People watching this and listening to this might think: Well, these are technical and arcane procedures. They are technical and arcane procedures. But they are stopping us from moving forward with the Violence Against Women Act. We can set them aside for Transportation and the FAA--both important things--but if you are somebody who has been battered and abused, if you are near death, do not talk to that person about technicalities. I have said many times on this floor--I still have nightmares from some of the crime scenes I went to as a young prosecutor. It was always at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning. The ones easiest to handle were those where the victim lived, although sometimes just barely. I remember riding in the ambulance with a victim on the way to the emergency room to find out what happened. Many other times we were there waiting for the coroner to arrive because the body was on the floor. I wish everybody who is hiding behind these technicalities would come with those of us from both parties, those of us who have been prosecutors, who have gone to those crime scenes. I guarantee you, they would be back here saying: Get rid of those technicalities. I cannot understand the House Republican leadership hiding behind this excuse to avoid debating and voting on the bipartisan Senate bill. This is a good bill. It brought Republicans and Democrats together in this body across the political spectrum. The House Republican leadership should stop blocking it on this obscure technicality. The Speaker can waive the technicality. The House could vote on the Senate bill any time. I would like to see people stand up and say: Yes, I want to stop violence against women or I am going to vote ``no.'' Right now they are allowed to vote ``maybe.'' No victim wants to hear ``maybe.'' They want us to do something. Both in the House and the Senate, we have a privileged position as Members. Do not hide behind a technicality. Have the courage--have the courage--to stand up and vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' The House Republicans could have allowed a vote on the text of the Senate bill as a House amendment or a House bill. Instead, they are choosing to hold up VAWA reauthorization for all victims. Please reconsider. Move forward with us to protect all victims of violence. And if you are unwilling to do that, if you are going to stand behind this, do not go home and campaign and say you have a commitment to women. Battered women are in all categories. They go across all political spectrums. They go across all economic spectrums. Do not go back home and say: I am standing up for you. No, you are not standing up. You are hiding. You are hiding. You are hiding behind a technicality. Well, these victims cannot hide. They are sought out, and they become victims. Let's do something for them. Our bill was developed with the input of victims and the service providers who work with them day in and day out. It helps women who are victims of terrible crimes--the very people we claim we want to support and protect. It does so in important and responsible ways. Do not go home and say: I stand up for all of you; do not go home and say: I am standing for law enforcement; do not go home and say: I want people protected when you refuse to step around a procedural motion and protect them. Do not be that hypocritical. We have only a few precious days left this Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. If the Republican leadership wants to help end domestic and sexual violence, well then, do so. Now is the time to act. Do not hide behind fiction. Have the courage to stand up and say you are on the side of victims. And if you are not on their side, then stand up and vote against them. Do not vote ``maybe.'' Do not hide behind a technicality. It is time to make good on our promise to the victims of these horrible crimes. Helping them--no matter who they are--has to be our goal. Their lives depend upon it. Our lives do not depend upon it, but their lives depend upon it. They are counting on us. It is time to stand up. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From Politico, Sept. 11, 2012] Weakening Violence Against Women Act Betrays Immigrant Victims (By Mark Shurtleff and Doug Gansler) All women who have lived through violence and abuse should have the certainty that the law will protect them--no matter their race, creed, color, religion or immigration status. Unfortunately, Congress is now considering proposals that would erode this certainty--and its failure to act is already causing harm. We urge congressional leaders to move forward now to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, without provisions harmful to immigrants. As long-time law enforcement leaders, we know this act is crucial. Since passage in 1994, it has helped cut domestic violence by more than half. Still, the scourge of domestic violence remains a serious problem: One in four women experiences an act of domestic violence or sexual assault in her lifetime, and three women die every day at the hands of abusive husbands or partners. Rates of trafficking women--often from one abusive context to another--are also alarmingly high. Roughly 100,000 survivors of human trafficking live in the United States today, according to the State Department, whose estimates suggest as many as 17,500 foreign-born victims are illegally brought in each year. We need every available tool to fight these serious crimes, so we fully support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act--but not in a dangerously altered form that would harm vulnerable immigrant women. We don't use ``dangerously'' lightly. When the House sought reauthorization, legislators made changes that dramatically roll back important protections for battered immigrant women and their children--leaving them vulnerable to abuse and, worse, death at the hands of an abuser. Several House provisions would further endanger immigrant survivors of human trafficking and domestic abuse. These provisions would leave them no legal way to break the cycle of violence in which they are trapped and leave law enforcement no way to bring perpetrators to justice. The changes, for example, would discourage immigrant survivors from calling the police, for fear of immigration issues--so police can't intervene and save their lives. For many of these women, immigration status is one more weapon that abusers use to intimidate them. Abusers often threaten, ``You can't call the police. They'll just deport you.'' Under the existing law, our response is clear: ``He's wrong. You're safe.'' If we certify that a victim was helpful to law enforcement during an investigation, she can seek special legal immigration status--known as a U visa. But the House bill would make this visa temporary and take away an immigrant survivor's incentive to come forward. ``He's wrong; you're safe'' would be replaced with the far less reassuring message ``You'll have to wait and see.'' What kind of person does the U visa help? Consider ``Stephanie,'' an immigrant living in Maryland who lacked work authorization. She had already been sexually harassed by work supervisors when a stranger followed her into a room in the building where she was working and tried to rape her. Stephanie was able to fight him off and immediately reported the incident to police, who found the man nearby and arrested him. After reporting the terrible crime, Stephanie learned she would be eligible for a U visa for her cooperation with police and the state's attorney. Her assistance helped get a rapist off the streets. Today, Stephanie has her U visa and is confident and self-supporting. The House bill would silence thousands of women like Stephanie and derail our efforts to put their attackers behind bars. Worse, it would further endanger some of the very women whom the Violence Against Women Act is meant to help. In late August, we received a reminder of reauthorization's urgency. Our immigration authorities announced that they had reached the limit of 10,000 U visas for the current fiscal year, leaving a six-week gap before the new fiscal year brings a fresh allotment. In the meantime, lives are at risk. The Senate's bipartisan reauthorization bill would increase that visa limit to 15,000, a significant boost for law enforcement and public safety. The law enforcement community now has 17 years of experience with the Violence Against Women Act and has used it successfully to combat human trafficking, sexual assault and domestic violence. We have relied on it to protect survivors of all stripes and hold their abusers accountable. These abusers don't differentiate by race, creed, color, religion or immigration status. In seeking justice for survivors, neither should we. The House version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization seeks to turn a bipartisan concern for abuse survivors into a partisan wedge. Congress must not let partisanship stand in the way of our work to protect all women, and their families, from harm.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives passed S. 3245, legislation to reauthorize the job-creating EB-5 Regional Center Program for an additional 3 years. In addition to this important program, the legislation also prevents the expiration of three other immigration programs important to Senator Conrad, Senator Hatch, and Senator Grassley. I am very pleased the House acted with such strong bipartisan support, and I commend House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith for his quick action on the bill. Once again I thank the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, for his partnership on this legislation. Passage of this legislation in the House today will ensure that the job-creating EB-5 Regional Center Program will continue. Today's action will allow the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to continue to improve and grow the program administratively and will give me and other interested lawmakers, agency officials, and private citizens the time needed to consider and find consensus on lasting statutory improvements to the program so that it may continue as a permanent and vital part of our immigration system. Most importantly, it will allow American entrepreneurs to continue building job-creating development projects around the country. This program is and will remain a productive part of America's immigration system. Like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the United States is right to provide the world's citizens the opportunity to immigrate to its shores based upon investment. This program welcomes people from around the world who devote substantial investment capital to American businesses to invigorate American communities. And it does so at no cost to the American taxpayer. Moreover, those who immigrate through this program will purchase real estate and other goods, enroll their children in our schools, colleges, and universities, pay taxes, and enrich the communities in which they will live and work. As the availability of credit in the United States has become restricted, particularly for new and small businesses, many have turned to this program for capital. The program's growth over the last several years has been significant. And with increased growth comes the need for the law to keep pace and for the administering agency to adapt to this growth and devote the necessary resources. As we move forward, I look forward to continuing my work on comprehensive legislation to make this program an efficient, more productive, and permanent part of our immigration law. We have already seen many instances of the way in which this program can harness together many individual investments to do big things in many communities. But the law can and will benefit from some improvement in the coming months, and I stand ready to work with any Senators who recognize the value and potential of this program. Our immigration law provides 10,000 visas each year for this program. When this program reaches the point at which it is fully subscribed, based on the minimum required investment amount and the statutory job creation requirement, it has the potential to direct $5 billion in foreign capital investment into American communities each year, with the potential for the creation of 100,000 American jobs. And that calculation does not take into account the domestic capital that can be attracted when projects are capitalized and carried out through this program or the ancillary benefits that communities experience when local economies are strengthened, nor does it account for the immeasurable contributions that new Americans make to our communities across the country every day. We all recognize the need to take steps to do whatever we can to spur our economy and create jobs for American citizens. I have no doubt that the action taken unanimously by the Senate on August 3 and the decisive action taken by the House of Representatives today to complete the legislative process on this bill will help us meet this shared goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, eleven years ago today, on a crisp early autumn morning much like today's, I was at the Supreme Court for the semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference when I got word of the first attack of 9/11. I quietly informed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was presiding over our meeting. Soon afterward we heard a muffled ``bump,'' followed by a report that a car bomb may have gone off across town at the State Department. Of course, we later learned that this had been the sound of another plane, as it slammed into the Pentagon. I remember later that day, evacuating my staff from the Russell Senate Building. I remember crossing along the West Front of the Capitol as two fighter jets streaked up the Mall. I remember the unnatural stillness of a big city in shock, similar only to what I saw as a law student at Georgetown, when a pall descended over Washington after the news that President John F. Kennedy had been killed. At this morning's meeting of the Judicial Conference in that same room where we met 11 years ago on this date, several participants offered reflections about this somber anniversary. I noted that much of what holds our country together in times of crisis is the integrity of the three branches of our constitutional government. In recent times, for temporary political gain, there too often has been the temptation to tear down our foundational institutions, undermining the public's faith and confidence in our system. Over time, that cannot help but erode that foundation. I pointed out that this was why, the day after the attacks 11 years ago, each and every Senator made the effort to be in his or her seat in an unmistakable gesture of unity of purpose. We knew that we had to reopen this emblem and pillar of American democracy, and I was proud to be in my seat representing Vermont when the Senate convened for business that next morning. Over this past decade, as Americans we have gathered each year on this date to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so casually and so callously on that terrible morning. We also remember and honor the brave first responders and military servicemembers who have lost their lives protecting and serving our country. It has been more than a year since President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden had finally been brought to justice. Although his death will never heal the pain of the families who grieve their losses, we all hope that it will bring a degree of closure and a measure of solace to them, and to all Americans. In the aftermath of this tragedy, it became clear that changes to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were needed to address the government's failure to connect the dots before the attacks. I have worked to ensure that Federal agencies have the tools they need to make our borders more secure, improve our intelligence gathering, track down terrorists and bring them to justice, in ways that are consistent with our laws and fundamental values. I firmly believe that we can keep our Nation safe without relinquishing our values. The last 11 years have further exposed the perversity and bankruptcy at the core of al-Qaida's philosophy and the resilient strength at the core of America's foundational principles. We are a people whose power is in our diversity, our principles, and our liberty. No attack on our shores has ever taken those from us, and no attack ever will.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is an honor to recognize Rosaire Longe, a man who has dedicated much of his life to civil service. Whether fighting fires, serving the city of Burlington, VT, as city assessor, representing his district in the Vermont State Legislature, or maintaining order in the courtroom as a court officer, Mr. Longe has continually served the people and State of Vermont. A native of New York, Mr. Longe spent most of his childhood years in Vermont. After graduating from Burlington High School in 1958, Mr. Longe worked as a firefighter for the Burlington Fire Department, a profession he continued for 10 years. Mr. Longe went back to school at Champlain College, where he received his associate's degree in accounting in 1979. Before beginning his career as a court officer, Mr. Longe worked as the Burlington City Assessor and served as a state representative for one term in the Vermont Legislature. For the past 20 years, Mr. Longe has ensured the smooth running of the Vermont Superior Court in Burlington as a court officer. His ready smile and easy manners have helped jurors, witnesses and judges alike feel assured in the courtroom. Outside of work, Mr. Longe served as a Justice of the Peace for over 30 years, and in that capacity, he has presided over the marriage of over 2,000 couples. These professional accomplishments aside, Mr. Longe has touched the lives of many Vermonters. Friends and co-workers have described him as ``one of the best men'' they know. Whether he is leading people in and out of the courthouse, officiating a neighbor's wedding, or merely encouraging those around him with a smile and a laugh, Mr. Longe has proven himself to be the epitome of a true Vermonter. Marcelle and I have known Rosaire and his wife, Irene, for decades, and share Vermonters admiration for him. In light of his character and history as a public servant, Rosaire deserves recognition for a full lifetime of civil service and contribution to his community and State.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like others in this body, including Senator Udall of Colorado and my fellow senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, I support extending the production tax credit for wind energy. This extension is critical to maintaining America's leadership in green energy development and can directly increase domestic job growth. Vermont has already seen the positive results of the production tax credit for wind energy, but the wind industry impacts our entire country. Every American has a stake in the extension of this tax credit. I am proud that Vermont is a leader in green energy. My State has set ambitious, yet achievable, goals to develop renewable energy resources and technology. We are doing our part to promote job growth, national security, and environmental benefits that tap into local, renewable energy sources. Yet despite these efforts, Vermont has already experienced negative consequences from the uncertainty that surrounds the extension of this tax credit. I frequently hear the success stories in the renewable energy industry coming out of Vermont, and from industry leaders there about the exciting new projects they are developing. But this summer, the stories have been different. One such company, NRG Systems in Vermont, has been a global leader in wind measurement. The company's CEO, Jan Blittersdorf, and her team of dedicated employees take great pride in delivering precise, reliable and proven wind measurement and turbine control equipment. Jan is an industry leader who has been recognized as a Champion of Change by President Obama and who has been praised for her renewable energy work and efforts to advance the role of women in the green energy sector. During the recession, as jobs were being cut in many sectors across the country and in Vermont, NRG bucked the trend by hiring new workers, and the company continued to innovate and look for ways to grow their business. Today, you can find their products in more than 144 countries. Now, however, due to the uncertainty surrounding the extension of the production tax credit, companies like NRG are putting new projects on hold, and for the first time in its 30 year history NRG Systems has been forced to lay off workers--a devastating prospect for a business in a rural state that has prided itself on its ability to adapt to changing market conditions and its strong support for its workers. These are skilled and dedicated employees losing vital domestic jobs. American workers cannot afford a delay in the extension of the production tax credit. At a time when manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, the wind energy sector has done the opposite: it has added manufacturing jobs here in America. Wind energy companies, like NRG Systems, are entrepreneurs who are doing the kind of groundbreaking work that drives our economy. We have a chance to invest in jobs for America, rather than subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels ensures that we will have more of the extreme weather events that have long been a predicted consequence of global warming, such as the drought that is devastating our Nation's farmers this summer and the terrible flooding from Hurricane Irene last summer. It is time to say goodbye to the big oil tax subsidies and usher in a new era of wind energy. The benefits are clear: wind energy has propelled a sustainable and domestic energy source, increased jobs for Americans, and strengthened our domestic energy security. These are jobs we cannot afford to lose. In Vermont, and for the wind industry across the country, NRG Systems is the canary in the coal mine--an early indicator of the crisis that the wind industry is headed toward if the production tax credit is not extended. This crisis is something we have seen every time this tax credit has lapsed. Each time the production tax credit has been allowed to lapse, revenues in the wind industry fall precipitously, businesses shutter their doors, and workers lose their jobs. There are ways to avoid this catastrophe. We must continue the production tax credit now or we will most certainly cede these jobs to other countries. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting these important credits. They support American jobs, American companies, American ingenuity, and American energy security. We should extend the production tax credit for wind and continue America's leadership in this growing energy sector.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to use this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary contribution of a dear friend of mine, Dr. Henry Jarecki, who is the founding chairman of the Institute of International Education's Scholar Rescue Fund. This year is the fund's 10th anniversary, and on September 18, 2012, Dr. Jarecki will be honored with the Institute of International Education's Humanitarian Award--along with Scholar Rescue's other founders, Tom Russo, Henry Kaufman and George Soros--for his commitment to protecting endangered scholars around the world. The Scholar Rescue Fund provides safe havens to scholars whose lives are threatened, often for no other reason than their intellectual pursuits, allowing them to continue their academic work. No other global fund of this kind exists. Since 2002, with congressional support, the Scholar Rescue Fund has enabled 469 threatened scholars from 48 countries to resettle in places where they have safely pursued their professional studies and research, preserving the intellectual capacity of a country during conflict or crisis. Over 40 percent of these scholars have returned to their home countries. For example, as reports emerged of assassinations of Iraqi scholars, the Scholar Rescue Fund identified those in danger and provided stipends so they could resettle and continue teaching and writing in Jordan and other neighboring countries. Many have since returned to leadership positions at Iraqi universities as that country rebuilds its institutions of higher education. While many have supported the Scholar Rescue Fund, Dr. Henry Jarecki stands out. Drawing on his own experiences as a child whose family fled Nazi Germany, Dr. Jarecki has generously devoted his energy, resources, and time to the fund. He has been a passionate voice for responding to the dangers confronting scholars in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and now Syria. He has guided staff and inspired fellow board members, always striving to do more on behalf of persecuted academics. He has been a source of support and hope to threatened scholars everywhere. Dr. Jarecki's own words explain his motivation best: ``Most of all, I thank and admire our scholars, who have gone through hell to educate us.'' I am proud to have been his friend for decades, and I know his deep commitment. It is with great respect, gratitude, and admiration that, on the occasion of the Scholar Rescue Fund's 10th anniversary, we recognize and commend Dr. Henry Jarecki's work to protect scholars worldwide. Because of his efforts the fund will continue into the future, saving the lives, work, and voices of threatened academics and reminding us all of the importance of intellectual freedom.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time and ask it be under the control of Senator Harkin. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are beginning about 3 minutes late. I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in such a way that the vote still starts at 5:30.

Mr. LEAHY. When the Senate recessed more than a month ago, 22 judicial nominees to fill vacancies in courtrooms around the country were left pending, awaiting a Senate vote. Today, Senate Republicans have agreed to vote on just one of those nominees. I want to commend Senator Harkin for working with Senator Grassley and the Majority Leader to get this vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose of Iowa. I urge votes on the other nominees, as well, without further delay. There are currently 78 Federal judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies during the last few years have been at historically high levels and have remained near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the President. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal judgeships is currently vacant. Vacancies on the Federal courts are more than two and one half times as many as they were on this date during the first term of President Bush. One key reason for these numerous vacancies and for the extensive backlog of nominees is that Senate Republicans allowed votes on just one district court nominee per week for the last seven weeks before the August recess. This unnecessarily slow pace of consideration of judicial nominees has disserved the American people and should not continue. The across-the-board obstruction and foot dragging from Senate Republicans since day one of President Obama's tenure means that we are likely to complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than when he took office. The partisan obstruction from Senate Republicans has been particularly damaging with respect to Federal trial courts. In a sharp departure from the past, Senate Republicans have stalled Senate approval of district court nominees, including those Republican home state Senators support. Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously. During the 18 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, we confirmed 83 of President Bush's district court nominees, and only one of them received any votes in opposition. Even though some Senate Democrats opposed the nominee, we nevertheless scheduled a vote for him just 11 days after he was reported by the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, only five district court nominees received any votes in opposition in all 8 years of the previous Republican presidency, and none was a party-line vote. Among those nominees was one so extreme that he had announced that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' That observation was much like the outrageous recent comments about rape by a Republican House member and Senate candidate. In all, the Senate confirmed 264 of President Bush's district court nominees, and only five of them received any votes in opposition. Senate Democrats were willing to work with a very conservative Republican President to fill vacancies on our Federal trial courts. We recognized that filling vacancies on district courts is essential to ensuring that the American people have functioning courts to serve them and provide access to justice. We know that it is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. In The Atlantic Andrew Cohen has written recently about the ``Human Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays.'' In that article, the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania describes the costs of vacancies on individuals in Pennsylvania and the pervasive and harmful delays they are suffering because there are not enough judges. At this point in President Bush's first term, Senate Democrats had worked with Republicans to confirm 165 of his district court nominees. Despite the fact that President Obama has worked with home state Senators of both parties to select moderate, superbly-qualified judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction of Federal trial court nominees for the last four years. As Carl Tobias noted last month in a letter to the New York Times: Republican senators have created and applied practices that substantially depart from procedures employed in prior administrations, even as recently as that of President George W. Bush. The most important change is the refusal by the G.O.P. leadership to enter voting agreements on well- qualified, uncontroversial district court nominees, so they languish for months on the Senate floor. Professor Tobias is correct, and the result is that at this point in his first term President Obama's district court nominees have had to wait nearly three times longer for a Senate vote and the Senate has confirmed more than three dozen fewer. Senate Republicans have made a habit of delaying and opposing President Obama's district court nominees, voting against more than a quarter of them--36 out of 127 to be precise. And they stall confirmations for months of noncontroversial nominees including those supported by home state Republican Senators who are eventually confirmed overwhelmingly. This extreme partisanship has not just resulted in persistently high vacancies--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently observed that it is also ``bad for the legal system'' as a whole. He indicated: ``It makes the judiciary look politicized when it is not, and it has to stop.'' District courts in particular should not be politicized. The 18 district court nominees currently pending before the Senate were not chosen based on some ideological litmus test. They were selected for their legal excellence, whether as practicing attorneys or sitting judges. Recently, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania signaled his newfound willingness to abandon the unprecedented delays and obstruction that his caucus has employed against President Obama's trial court nominees. I only wish he had done so 2 years ago. What Senate Republicans have been doing is wrong and hurts all Americans seeking justice in our Federal courts. Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating. She has the bipartisan support of her home state Senators. I worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to ensure prompt Judiciary Committee consideration of her nomination, which was reported with a virtually unanimous voice vote by the Judiciary Committee nearly five months ago. The only objection came as a protest on another issue by Senator Lee. Stephanie Rose currently serves as the first woman U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, where she has been serving since 2009. Ms. Rose has devoted her entire career to public service, having served for 15 years as a Federal prosecutor and having been promoted to Deputy Criminal Chief in 2008. In her tenure as a Federal prosecutor, she has tried 33 cases to verdict. When confirmed, she will be the first woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa and only the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history. With the elections approaching, the Senate will recess, again, in just a few weeks. When the Senate recessed in 2009, 10 judicial nominees were left without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed in 2010, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed last year, in 2011, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final vote. I urge Senate Republicans not to continue their practice of stalling qualified nominees from confirmation. I urge them to agree to schedule debate and votes on the 18 district court nominees from California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Utah who, like Stephanie Rose, could be confirmed with strong bipartisan support and without further delay. A dozen of those nominees would fill judicial emergency vacancies. Let us act on these nominations. There is no doubt that recent precedent shows we can do this even in September of a Presidential election year. In 2008, the final year of President Bush's presidency, Senate Democrats were willing to confirm 10 of his district court nominees in a single day, all by unanimous consent. It took only a few seconds. Earlier in that Republican presidency, and again with a Democratic Majority, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees in just one day and vacancies went down to 60 throughout the country, on the way down to 28. If we confirm all of the district nominees ready for final Senate action today, we can similarly reduce vacancies back down to 60. I hope that Senate Republicans will not extend their wrongheaded application of the ``Thurmond Rule'' and further stall confirmation of consensus, well-qualified district court nominees. Given our overburdened Federal courts and the need to provide all Americans with prompt justice, the Senate should be working in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these nominees without further delay. I ask unanimous consent the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several weeks ago I spoke in this Chamber about the assault on freedom of expression in Ecuador, where President Correa has sought to silence his critics including the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. Last week, these attacks on legitimate expression reached a new height when, according to press reports, Ecuador's Secretariat of Pueblos, Mireya Cardenas, said the government is investigating Fundamedios to determine if the support it receives from the U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID--is being used to interfere in ``internal political affairs''. She specifically criticized Fundamedios for lodging complaints at the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. She also attacked USAID for supporting sustainable forestry, civil society organizations, and the development of local productive enterprises, which are designed to protect the environment and improve the livelihoods of the Ecuadoran people. Mr. President, Fundamedios is a respected Ecuadoran nonpartisan organization that seeks to defend freedom of the press at a time when journalists and media organizations in that country are being vilified and threatened by officials of the very government that should be protecting them. It is similar to the conduct we have seen in Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, and other countries whose governments mistakenly equate legitimate advocacy by civil society organizations with unlawful political activity, as if Ecuador's political affairs are the sole province of those who the government approves of. It is also important to reaffirm the indispensable role of the Inter- American human rights system, which has recently been targeted not only by President Correa, but also by the leaders of other Latin countries with weak and corrupt judicial systems who, in the name of ``reform'', seek to limit access to alternative fora for its citizens to obtain justice for abuses by government security forces. It is interesting that these same governments welcome the support of the OAS when it suits them, but campaign to weaken its mandate when it does not. To make a bad situation worse, President Correa again recently attacked one of Ecuador's most respected newspapers. A few weeks ago, he said on TV that an editor with El Universo was ``sinister.'' And on July 28, he suggested that the editor of El Comercio was ``mentally ill'' and ``unethical'', for what appear to be nothing more than public comments made on the paper's website by readers who questioned presidential decisions. On July 31, members of the police and the labor ministry, reportedly without a warrant, seized several items and information from the offices of the magazine Vanguardia for allegedly violating labor laws. The magazine's director, Juan Carlos Calderon, said the incident is an attempt to silence the independent press in Ecuador. For those of us who want closer relations between the United States and other countries in the hemisphere, including Ecuador, and who believe it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for universal human rights of which freedom of expression is the most cherished, it is disappointing to see the path the Correa government is taking. This is not about competing political philosophies, party affiliation, or national sovereignty. It is about protecting the right of Ecuadoran journalists and Fundamedios to be free of government interference, and of defending the constitutional rights of all of Ecuador's citizens. The country's first constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Its current constitution, just 4 years old, protects each citizen's right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations.'' The people of Ecuador have a right to receive uncensored information. Sometimes that information is accurate, sometimes it is not. Everyone in public office knows that. Personal attacks and inflammatory charges by top officials weaken democratic discourse and have no place in a country with a long commitment to civil liberties.