Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nominations of Gary Katzmann of Massachusetts and Jennifer Choe Groves of Virginia to fill judicial vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade. It is a step in the right direction that the majority leader has agreed to take these nominations, but two other nominees to the Court of International Trade remain pending on the Senate floor. There is no good reason we cannot also confirm these nominees today. I support the confirmation of both highly qualified nominees. Since 2004, Gary Katzmann has served as an Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the State's second highest court. Before joining the bench, Justice Katzmann served for over 20 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. In addition to his superb credentials, Justice Katzmann's family is part of our Nation's history of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution. Justice Katzmann's father and grandmother came to the U.S. as refugees from Nazi Germany. Jennifer Choe Groves has over 20 years of legal experience working in private practice and the government, having served in the New York District Attorney's Office and in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. When confirmed, Ms. Groves will be the first Asian American and Pacific Islander judge to serve on the U.S. Court of International Trade. While the Senate is taking up these nominees today, the majority leader has allowed just 18 judicial nominees to be confirmed since Republicans took over the Senate majority last year. Contrast this dismal record to the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration, when Democrats were in control. At this same point in the Bush Presidency, Democrats confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Senate Republicans have allowed only a trickle of judicial confirmations despite the fact that, under their watch, judicial vacancies have nearly doubled from 43 to 85. Of these, 29 have been designated as judicial emergencies where caseloads are unmanageably high and the administration of justice is strained. The harm that Republican obstruction has wrought on our Federal courts extends from the trial courts across America to our Nation's highest court. Today marks 82 days since Chief Judge Merrick Garland was first nominated to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Under the Senate's recent timeline for considering judicial nominees, Chief Judge Garland should have received a hearing and a vote by now. Instead, Senate Republicans have continued as their party standard bearer has said to ``delay, delay, delay.'' This has resulted in a diminished eight-member Supreme Court that has been repeatedly unable to serve its highest function under our Constitution. It is the Senate's duty to ensure our independent judiciary can fully function. I hope Senate Republicans understand that obligation and act on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, as well as the 22 judicial nominations that will still remain languishing on the Senate floor after today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is passing legislation to strengthen an important humanitarian innovation prize created by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO. Since 2012, the Patents for Humanity Award has recognized selected patent holders who use their inventions to address humanitarian needs. The legislation the Senate passed today will strengthen the award program and encourage innovators to continue using their work for humanitarian goals. The innovations that are recognized by the Patents for Humanity Award program help underserved people throughout the world. Award winners have worked to improve nutrition, provide clean drinking water, fix broken bones in remote hospitals that lack x-ray technology, bring solar-powered energy to villages that are off the power grid, and combat the problem of dangerous counterfeit drugs, among other achievements. Winners of the Patents for Humanity Award demonstrate that our patent system does more than drive economic gain for individual companies; it can incentivize research and discoveries that promote humanitarian good. Winners of the Patents for Humanity Award receive a one-time certificate to accelerate a process or application at the PTO, as described in the program rules. For several years, small businesses and global health groups have told me that the prize would be more usable, particularly for small business innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. Award winners who are not able to use the acceleration certificate themselves will be able to transfer the certificate to another inventor, including through sale, allowing the winner to receive a cash benefit. By making the certificates transferable, we are increasing the value of this humanitarian innovation prize without using a single taxpayer dollar. The thoughtful structure of the Patents for Humanity Award program, set forth in its founding documents in the Federal Register, will ensure that this program remains sustainable and does not unduly burden the PTO or other patent applicants whose applications are pending before the Office. The award is granted to only a select number of patent holders per year--approximately 10 or fewer, with a further 20 applications receiving honorable mentions--and the PTO has provided clear guidance on the types of processes for which the certificates may be used. Program judges are selected based on recognized subject matter expertise, with clear competition criteria, and rules in place to prevent conflicts of interest. These practices and safeguards, which are described in detail in the Federal Register at 79 Fed. Reg. 18670 and 77 Fed. Reg. 6544, will ensure that the program continues to operate appropriately and well. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act is a straightforward and bipartisan bill that will strengthen this valuable innovation program and encourage inventions to be used for humanitarian good. I thank other Senators for supporting this bill and urge the House to pass it without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution to commemorate the 100th anniversary of a crucial milestone in the history of Ireland, the 1916 Easter Rising rebellion. As a son of Ireland through my father's ancestors, I am proud to reflect on this important moment in Ireland's long march to independence. The relationship between the United States and Ireland is long, it is strong, it is enduring, and it cannot be understated. As President Kennedy once said in a speech before Ireland's Parliament, ``No people ever believed more deeply in the cause of Irish freedom than the people of the United States.'' Both the United States and Ireland have histories rooted in a common set of ideals and goals, and we share similar principles and beliefs in freedom. A marker of the influence of the United States is the fact that our Nation is the only foreign country named in the 1916 Proclamation of the Republic, which proclaimed Ireland's independence. My relatives on my father's side believed strongly in the promises of opportunity in the United States when they emigrated here in the mid- 1800s. Marcelle and I have visited Ireland and met distant relatives who live there still. It is easy to see and feel the strong connections between our two countries. Last week's centennial anniversary of the Easter Rising, commemorated on both sides of the Atlantic, recalls a turning point in Ireland's history. The influences of freedom, dignity, and prosperity in America that motivated many of the leaders of that rebellion 100 years ago are worth fighting to preserve and nurture here in the United States today. Like so many lessons of the past, the Easter Rising is a moment to reflect on our own freedoms and our own march toward perfecting our own Union.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I may be dating myself when I say this, but I remember when Ruby Paone started work here as a fresh graduate from St. Andrews University. That was April of 1975, just a few months after I began my own tenure here in the Senate, and for more than 41 years, she has served in the U.S. Senate as a public servant of the highest caliber. Ruby is a remarkable woman. Throughout her Senate experience, she has befriended future Presidents and legendary legislators. The Senate permeates her family. She and her husband, longtime Senate aide and now adviser to President Obama, Marty Paone, have raised three wonderful children. Ruby is from the small town of Bladenboro, NC, and she brings the very best of small towns to this often chaotic city. In true smalltown fashion, she knows everyone, never forgets a name or a face, and has a smile and a kind remark for everyone she sees. I have often said that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staff, and the same can surely be said for Ruby. Her steadfast service and collegiality are part of what makes the Senate work. Ruby, thank you for all that you have done for the Senate, and we wish you the best in retirement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly 150 years ago, Congress determined that a fully functioning Supreme Court should consist of nine Justices. For more than 100 days, however, the Supreme Court has been unable to operate at full strength as a result of unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans. Under Republican leadership, the Senate is on track to be in session for the fewest days since 1956. Senate Republicans simply refuse to do their jobs. If Senate Republican leadership has its way, this seat on the Supreme Court will remain unnecessarily vacant for more than a year. President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland 70 days ago. Based on the timing of the Senate's consideration of Supreme Court nominees over the past four decades, Chief Judge Garland should be receiving a confirmation vote on the Senate floor today. Instead, Republican Senators are discussing a hypothetical list of nominees issued by their presumptive nominee for President. Senate Republicans should be responsible enough to address the real vacancy on the Supreme Court that is right now keeping the Court from operating at full strength. Chief Judge Garland has received bipartisan support in the past, and there is no reason other than partisan politics to deny him the same process the Senate has provided Supreme Court nominees for the last 100 years. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee recently suggested we put down on paper how the Senate treats Supreme Court nominees. I did just that with Senator Hatch in 2001 when we memorialized the longstanding Judiciary Committee practice that Supreme Court nominees receive a hearing and a vote, even in instances when a majority of the Judiciary Committee did not support the nominee. The chairman and all Republicans should go back to that letter to use as roadmap for considering Chief Judge Garland's nomination now. Republicans have been dismissive about the need for a fully functioning Supreme Court with nine Justices, but as we have already seen this term, the Supreme Court has been repeatedly unable to serve its highest function under our Constitution. Without a full bench of justices, the Court has deadlocked and has been unable to address circuit court conflicts or resolve cases on the merits. The effect, as the New York Times reported recently, is a ``diminished'' Supreme Court. In a bid to appeal to moneyed interest groups, Republicans have weakened our highest Court in the land, both functionally and symbolically. In the face of this obstruction, some Supreme Court justices have tried to put on a brave face, proclaiming things are going along just fine. The facts show, however, that the opposite is true. As another recent news article notes, the Supreme Court is on pace to take on the lightest caseload in at least 70 years. At least one Supreme Court expert has suggested that the eight Justices currently serving may be reluctant to take on certain cases when they cannot be certain they will reach an actual decision on the merits without deadlocking. As each week passes and we see the Court take a pass on taking additional cases, the problem gets worse and the Court is further diminished. In some instances, the Court has issued rare and unprecedented follow-up orders to try to reach some kind of compromise where they otherwise cannot resolve the issue with eight Justices. This happened in Zubik v. Burwell, which involved religiously affiliated employers' objections to their employees' health insurance coverage for contraception. In that case, the Court took the unusual step of ordering supplemental briefing in the case, seemingly to avoid a 4-4 split and to reach some kind of compromise. Even with the extra briefing, the Court could not make a decision. Instead, it sent the issue back to the lower courts expressing ``no view on the merits of the cases.'' The reason we have one Supreme Court is so it can issue final decisions on the merits after the lower courts have been unable to do so in a consistent fashion. But the Supreme Court has recently punted cases back down to the lower courts for them to resolve the issue, possibly in different ways, because of its diminished stature. A Supreme Court that cannot resolve disputes among the appellate courts cannot live up to its name. The Court has been unable to resolve cases where even the most fundamental right is at stake, that of life and death. Former Judge Timothy K. Lewis of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals warned us of this earlier this month when he spoke at a public meeting to discuss the qualifications of Chief Judge Garland. Sadly, these warnings have become a reality. In one death row case, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to review it despite the fact that, at trial, an expert testified that the defendant was more likely to be dangerous in the future because of his race. The prosecution later conceded this testimony was inappropriate, but continued to raise procedural defenses in Buck's case. Such a case about whether a person sentenced to death has received due process is at the very heart of our democracy; yet our diminished Supreme Court has been unable to make a decision in this case and could deadlock on others. There are some who suggest a deadlocked decision may be beneficial when one supports the lower court's ruling, but that is both shortsighted and contrary to role of the courts in our constitutional system. A deadlocked decision postpones an actual decision from the final arbiter of law under our Constitution. This results in less certainty for all of us. I hope that Republicans will soon reverse course and put aside their obstruction to move forward on Chief Judge Garland's nomination to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Their failure to act is having a real impact on the American people. It is up to the Republican majority to allow this body to fulfill one of its most solemn duties and ensure that justice is not delayed for another year. Judge Garland deserves fairness. He should be given a public hearing and a vote without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on May 19, 2016, hundreds of guests flooded the Senate's Kennedy Caucus Room for the eleventh annual Taste of Vermont, an event that brings together over 60 businesses that showcase the best Vermont has to offer. From microbreweries to distilleries, farms to creameries, bake shops to chocolatiers, these business represent the best of Vermont's many unique, homegrown products. All of these businesses deserve acknowledgment for their contributions to our great State and for putting Vermont's business-friendly environment on the map. I want to take a minute to shine the spotlight on one company in particular. On the eve of this year's Taste of Vermont, the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ESOP, Association named King Arthur Flour the 2016 Company of the Year. Founded in 1790, King Arthur Flour epitomizes Vermont values. A business leader within the community, the company is focused on providing quality products to its loyal customers. After relocating to Norwich, VT, in 1984, owners Frank and Brinna Sands sold their company to their employees. They became 100 percent employee- owned in 2004 and have helped numerous other Vermont companies transition to ESOP status, including Heritage Aviation, the most recent Vermont-based company to join the ESOP ranks. King Arthur Flour has long been dedicated to bettering itself and its community, a laudable and often uncommon commitment from businesses. Currently in the midst of a large expansion of their facilities and programming, King Arthur Flour has adapted to meet the needs of their customers and introduced award-winning gluten-free baking mixes in 2010. The life skills bread baking program recently taught its 120,000th student, and classes from the baking education center have reached over 4,600 bakers. In King Arthur Flour, I see a commitment to being on the cutting edge of new ideas and developments, while remaining true to what their customers deserve. Congratulations to King Arthur Flour for this outstanding achievement and to everyone who was involved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all of us mourn the passing of a distinguished former Member of this body, Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, who died of an illness on May 4. I doubt that there were any in the Senate who did not truly like and admire Bob Bennett. His gentle spirit, his kindness, his civility, and his empathy for others were reflected in his work here for the people of Utah and for the Nation. Marcelle and I are fortunate to have called Bob and Joyce Bennett our friends while we served together. Senator Bennett and I were poles apart on many issues that came before the Senate, but, as with many others in this body, we were able to work together in good faith to find ways forward through many issues, knowing how important it was to our constituents, to the country, and to the Senate for us to do that. He followed the tradition of other highly respected Senators when I joined this body: He always kept his word. At the very end of his life, as he lay in a hospital bed in Salt Lake City, we now have heard from his family of yet another sign of his decency and humanity, as he specially sought out Muslim members of the hospital staff to thank them and to personally apologize to them for what they have heard of the divisive and hateful messages and the pandering to fear that has spilled out from the current Presidential campaign. He wanted them to know that he and most Americans welcome them, appreciate them, and recognize the pain that these invectives have caused and continue to cause. Reading and hearing his son's description of his dad's outreach in his final days touched me deeply, as I am sure is the case for all of us here and for all Americans of goodwill everywhere. All of us can learn from his poignant gestures, and we can resolve to deepen our own commitment to the eternal values--and the American values--that motivated him. What a powerful lesson he leaves for us all. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Salt Lake City Deseret News about this remarkable and telling episode from the final days of Senator Bennett's life be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on legislation to reauthorize key elements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. I supported this important law when it was first enacted nearly 10 years ago, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this reauthorization bill. Both the original legislation and the reauthorization bill we are voting on today bear the name of Adam Walsh, a young boy who was abducted and murdered nearly 35 years ago. Since that tragic day, Adam's father, John, has been a determined and tireless advocate on behalf of missing and exploited children. I have worked with John Walsh and others over the years to protect the most vulnerable among us. As a Senator and former prosecutor--but most importantly, as a father and a grandfather--I take seriously my duty to protect the children of Vermont and every community throughout the country. The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act will reauthorize two important programs that assist State and local law enforcement agencies to monitor and apprehend sex offenders. Specifically, this legislation authorizes the Attorney General to continue providing grants to State and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to improve sex offender registry systems. The bill also reauthorizes funding for grants to improve information sharing and verification and supports the work of the U.S. Marshals Service in helping State and local law enforcement to locate and apprehend sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements. For more than three decades, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, has served as a national clearinghouse on issues related to missing and exploited children. I know that the center works closely with the marshals and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act will help further our support for these collaborative efforts. NCMEC has played a vital role in these efforts, which is why last Congress, I helped lead the fight to reauthorize NCMEC, so that it could continue its important work. The bill also includes an important set of provisions authored by Senator Shaheen to protect the rights of sexual assault survivors, particularly with regard to sexual assault and rape kits. I want to thank and applaud Senator Shaheen for her hard work and leadership on the Sexual Assault Survivors Rights Act. As an original cosponsor of her bill, I supported the inclusion of her important measure as part of this bill. I encourage all Senators to support this bill. I hope that the House will take it up and promptly pass it so that it can be signed into law by the President. There is no need to delay any longer our support for the Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies that work tirelessly to protect the children of our community. But once this bill become law, our job does not end there. It is not sufficient to just pay lip service to this issue and allow Congress to pat itself on the back for passing an authorization bill. Just as we have seen with our efforts to combat the opioid abuse epidemic, a bill that authorizes programs is important and worthy of support, but ultimately an empty promise if it is not backed up with the actual Federal resources that Congress authorizes. I will keep fighting to ensure that Congress puts its money where its mouth is and provides the funding that is necessary to support these important efforts. I will continue fighting to improve our laws so that we protect the most vulnerable in all of our communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate continues to debate funding priorities for the American people in the coming year, I want to take a moment to recognize the importance of supporting our Nation's seniors. May is Older Americans Month. This is a time to recognize our responsibility to expand resources for the elderly and a moment to acknowledge the important role older Americans play in contributing to our country's livelihood and development. Older Americans Month has been recognized annually since 1963, when President Kennedy designated May as Senior Citizens Month to honor the dedication of seniors to our communities. At that time, just 17 million Americans had reached their 65th birthday, with over one-third of all seniors living in poverty. With few programs to support their needs, President Kennedy pledged to highlight elderly contributions to society in order to strengthen such services. This year's Older American's Month theme is ``Blaze a Trail,'' aimed at raising awareness about the many issues facing seniors today. From high health care costs, to the availability of healthy foods in vulnerable communities, our Nation's seniors deserve the resources they need to enjoy these richer years. Last month, the President signed the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act into law, marking the end of a 5-year long debate on how to reauthorize crucial programs for seniors in underserved communities. For decades, the Older Americans Act has strengthened community assistance for seniors, including through transportation, caregiver support, nutrition, and home-based aid. I am pleased the reauthorization remains steadfast in supporting these initiatives, and includes stronger protections for elder rights, while expanding disability and long-term care programs. But we cannot stop there. We must take this as an opportunity to underscore the importance of promoting senior services across all sectors. That means coming together as a Congress to produce solutions for long-term sustainability in Social Security and Medicare. It means expanding access to healthy foods across communities, including in hospitals and senior-care facilities. This means supporting caregivers and families who take time out of their lives to provide for their loved ones. And it means ensuring that cost of living adjustments are fairly calculated to account for senior expenses year after year. We all have a stake in promoting the livelihood of our Nation's elderly, whether it be for our own families or for the children of future generations. Let us be reminded this May that supporting older Americans is not just a matter of fairness, but a commonsense solution to promoting the wellbeing of our Nation at large. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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, since December of 2014, when the United States and Cuba ended 54 years of diplomatic isolation that had accomplished nothing good for the people of Cuba or the United States, there has been an explosion of engagement between our two countries. The number of U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba has skyrocketed. Talks between both governments resulted in agreements to resume direct airline, ocean ferry, and mail service. There is expanded cooperation in a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. These are encouraging steps, but there is a long road ahead. For more than half a century, whatever problems there were in Cuba the Cuban Government could blame on the United States because of our embargo. Some Members of the House and Senate have expressed disappointment, and criticized President Obama's opening to Cuba because the restoration of diplomatic relations has not quickly brought about dramatic changes in Cuba's repressive political system and did not reverse 54 years of history in 54 days. Well, these Members of Congress are either naive or simply prefer to ignore the positive changes that are occurring and choose to ignore or dismiss the views of the overwhelming majority of Cubans and Americans who support the restoration of relations. They continue to defend a discredited policy of isolation that through all those decades, and Republican and Democratic administrations, failed to achieve any of its objectives. As President Obama said, if you try something for 50 years and it doesn't work, it is time to try something else. In the past 15 months, although the naysayers will not publicly admit it, the Cuban people have a sense of hope about the future that has not existed since the time of the 1959 revolution. I know. I have seen and heard it on my trips there. It is also important to recognize that the majority of Cubans alive today were born after the revolution. And just as Cuba's population has changed, so the world has changed. Overwhelmingly, Cuba's younger generation has experienced enough of a paternalistic, Communist dictatorship and economic stagnation to know that is not what they want. It is no surprise that their reaction to President Obama's extraordinary speech in Havana was warmly and enthusiastically received by them, while several top Cuban officials, sensing the inspiring impact of the President's words, felt compelled to criticize our President. I was there for that visit. I saw the reaction of the Cuban people. The raising of the American flag in Havana last August symbolized the beginning of a new era in U.S.-Cuban relations, but change was happening in Cuba well before then, and it is going to continue at its own pace. Ultimately, the Cuban people--not the United States--will determine that pace and what a post-Castro Cuba will look like. My wife Marcelle and I stood there at our Embassy as the flag went up, and we heard the cheers of the Cuban people standing just outside the gates of the Embassy. We can contribute to the process of change in positive ways. One way is through student exchanges. Last month, Vermont students from Burlington, Essex, Shelburne, and Bristol traveled to Cuba to participate in a week of Little League baseball games and cultural exchange. Marcelle and I went to Burlington to see them off. I cannot begin to describe thrill in their faces, the excitement they felt. We gave them an American flag to take with them. The Vermonters didn't speak much Spanish, and the Cubans spoke almost no English, but it didn't really matter. They had translators, and the game of baseball is a language across cultures. Here is a picture of the Vermonters with the Cuban ball players holding the American flag that we gave them, the Cuban flag, and a Vermont flag. This was taken in Cuba. I love to take photographs. I wish I had been there to take that one. We know a picture is worth a thousand words. They show how just a few days of competing on a baseball diamond can help bridge a half-century divide between two countries and cultures. Anybody who has children--or grandchildren--who play baseball or Little League ball recognizes these smiles. We know what it means. They don't speak the same language, but they speak one language, which is the game of baseball. The Vermonters voiced high praise for the Cuban players who won all the games, except the all-star game at the end when they shared players and were evenly matched. But winning isn't everything. As the Vermont players recounted after returning home, it was not only a fun week of baseball, but one of the most rewarding parts of the trip was the time spent after the game getting to know the Cuban players, getting to know their families, and learning about life in Cuba. This is actually the second baseball exchange involving Vermont and Cuban Little Leaguers, the first being in 2008 when a group from Vermont and New Hampshire played a series of games on the outskirts of Havana. One of those players said the team went to Cuba just to have fun: ``We are not here to win. If they hear about us, maybe other teams will want to do this or maybe even get a Cuban team to the United States to play.'' Lisa Brighenti in my office took this photograph. I think it says it all. You can't see their faces, but we know one is Cuban and one is American. These are kids playing a Little League game. And think of what this picture says to all of us. Children don't care about the politics. They don't even care about the differences in language. They just care about the things that unite them. I remember speaking with President Obama shortly after he became President and saying we had to change our policy toward Cuba. I told him there would be a memo saying he should hold tight, the Castros will be gone any day. I pointed out that same memo was sent to President Eisenhower and President Kennedy and President Johnson and President Nixon, and he said: I get your point. Nothing changed during more than half a century when we tried to isolate Cuba. Now I think change will come. Our governments remain far apart on key issues. A few Members of Congress continue to stubbornly obstruct efforts to end the embargo, but as every poll has shown in this country the American people--like these young Vermont athletes--are showing us a way forward by breaking down barriers on their own. I am so proud of these young Vermonters. They know. They know what the future looks like. As for the rest of us, let's step toward the future with them. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week is National Police Week, and many of us have paused to thank our Nation's law enforcement officers for their important work. But it is not enough for us to simply pay tribute to these men and women. We must also provide them with the training and the resources they need to remain safe while they protect our communities. That is why I pushed for years to enact legislation to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, which President Obama signed into law on Monday. I authored this legislation with Senator Graham because every single law enforcement officer deserves to be protected by a lifesaving vest. Since its inception in 1998, this program has provided more than 1.2 million vests to more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies. The reauthorization signed into law this week ensures that hundreds of thousands more officers will be similarly protected. I have personally met with officers who were saved by vests purchased through this program. They will confirm that these vests are worth every penny. Today the Senate passed the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating COPS Expansion Act, or the POLICE Act. This legislation will provide law enforcement officers with training to handle active shooter situations. The bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, Major County Sheriffs Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association. I was proud to join Senator Cornyn as the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation. I thank Senator Cornyn for this. We have worked together on many law enforcement things over the years, and I think both Senator Cornyn and I have tried to demonstrate that law enforcement should not be a partisan matter, and we have done this in a bipartisan fashion. So many officers have heroically responded to active shooter situations. This week the President bestowed upon several officers the Medal of Valor for their response to active shooters, including three California officers who confronted a gunman during a rampage at a community college that left five people dead in 2013; a New York officer who arrested, at a crowded hospital, a gunman who already had killed another officer; and a New York sheriff's deputy who confronted and subdued a gunman who had wounded others and posed a threat to students at a nearby school. But I think we cannot rely on heroism alone. Senator Cornyn mentioned the training that helped end an active-shooter incident in Texas. Unfortunately, active-shooter incidents have become all too common, occurring in shopping malls and schools, the workplace, anywhere people gather. No State is immune, including my own State of Vermont. All of our Nation's officers should receive training on how to handle such situations so they can respond effectively to protect the public and to protect themselves. The POLICE Act will help make such training available. However, the burden of protecting the public from active shooters should not fall solely on the shoulders of our law enforcement officers. Congress must do more to prevent active shooter situations. That means preventing criminals and those who seek to cause harm from acquiring firearms in the first place. That is why the Senate should pass the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act that I sponsored with Senator Collins, which would provide law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and deter straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Congress must not become so numb to tragedy after tragedy that we fail to fulfill our duty to legislate, even when the issue involves firearms. As I said, Senator Cornyn and I have made it very clear that supporting our Nation's law enforcement officers in reducing gun violence is not a partisan issue. While we are making progress, much more remains to be done. I stand ready to work with anyone--Republican or Democrat--on commonsense ways to keep our law enforcement officers and communities safe. I applaud the Senate for passing this, I urge the House to quickly pass it, and I know the President will sign it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak in support of the Blunt- Murray-Graham-Leahy amendment, which provides $1.1 billion in emergency funding to combat the Zika virus. The map of the United States beside me beside me shows the Centers for Disease Control's estimate of the range of the two types of mosquito that may spread Zika. As you can see, this public health emergency is not in some far-off land. It could easily end up in the backyards of tens of millions of Americans. Before I discuss the pending bill I want to mention that earlier this afternoon I voted for the Nelson-Rubio Zika supplemental, which would have provided the full $1.9 billion requested by the President months ago. It is mystifying to me that Republicans voted to defeat that amendment, considering that Zika is spreading faster and in more ways than predicted when the President first requested those funds. The excuse we have heard for months, particularly from House Republican leaders, is that they don't have enough information about the proposed uses of the funds. Have they bothered to attend any of the briefings, or if briefings weren't enough, to pick up the phone and call the head of the CDC, or the Director of the National Institute of Health, or any of the other experts who have been sounding alarm bells since last year? In a little over a year the Zika virus has spread from Brazil to almost every country and territory in this hemisphere. There is no question that it is spreading faster and is more dangerous than was anticipated just a few months ago. As this map shows, more than half the continental United States, including my own state of Vermont, is now projected to be within the range of Zika carrying mosquitos. The virus can have devastating consequences for many of those who become infected, particularly children. We need to act, and if there is one area where politicians should not second guess the medical experts, it is how to respond to public health emergencies. So what did the House of Representatives do? First, they don't treat the Zika crisis as an emergency, even though it has spread to 36 countries and territories in this hemisphere and has been declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization. The House bill, introduced yesterday, would cut the amount requested by more than two-thirds, rob from other programs like the funds to combat Ebola, and limit the availability of Zika funds to the remaining 4 months of this fiscal year. More than half a billion dollars in Ebola funds have already been reprogrammed to combat Zika because it would have been irresponsible for the administration to wait any longer while Congress failed to act as the mosquitoes came north. But Ebola remains a deadly threat. Cases of Ebola continue to be confirmed in West Africa, and we have seen how one Ebola case today can become a dozen cases tomorrow and a hundred cases the next day. How quickly people here forget the fear that gripped this country after a single Ebola-related death in Texas 2 years ago. The funds we appropriated to combat Ebola are being put to good use, including to strengthen the capacity of African countries to respond to future outbreaks of Ebola or something even worse. The emergency funding in this bill includes $258 million for the Department of State and USAID to combat Zika in Latin America and the Caribbean. These funds will support efforts to control the spread of Zika and other insect-borne diseases, including to protect maternal health, expand public education on prevention, and encourage private sector research for the development of vaccines and diagnostics. These funds will provide contributions to international organizations, including the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization, to reduce the impact of the disease on infants and their families, and accelerate diagnosis. Funds are also included for Department of State and USAID operations to implement programs in the field, and provide medical support for U.S. citizens, State Department, USAID, and other Federal Government employees stationed overseas. If the Zika virus is not controlled in Latin America and the Caribbean, a year from now, it will likely be worse than projected and more costly to control. And if we continue to rob Ebola funds, which are being used for the purposes Congress intended, we simply shift the risk from one life-threatening disease to another. That makes no sense at all. If there is one thing on which Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, should agree it is doing whatever is necessary to protect the American people from dangerous, contagious diseases. It is past time for us to act, and I urge all Senators to support the Blunt-Murray- Graham-Leahy amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is the 62nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to justice and equality by ending racial segregation in our public schools. The unanimous Court overruled one of its worst precedents in Plessy v. Ferguson and held that ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' For generations, the Brown v. Board decision has been viewed as a turning point in the effort to eradicate the shameful legacy of Jim Crow and racial segregation. On this anniversary, we are reminded of the significance of a strong and independent Supreme Court, as set forth in our Constitution. Americans respect the Court as our guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law. Each generation of Americans since the Nation's founding has worked to bend the arc of the moral universe further toward justice, seeking to fulfill the Constitution's stated purpose of forming ``a more perfect Union.'' In Brown v. Board, the Court's unanimous decision reflected that we are a nation of laws and that equal justice under law has meaning. Unfortunately, while we commemorate this momentous Supreme Court decision today, we find the Supreme Court today weakened by Senate Republicans' current obstruction. It is an undisputable fact that the Republicans' refusal to consider Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination means that the Supreme Court will be without a full nine justices for more than one of its terms. The Republican argument articulated in February that they should delay all consideration because it is an election year has no precedent and is unprincipled. It shows contempt for the Court as an institution and as an independent and coequal branch of government. The result of Republicans' sustained obstruction is that the Court is taking on fewer cases, and even in the cases it does hear, it has repeatedly been unable to definitively resolve the issue before it. A May 1 article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post notes that the number of cases that the Justices have accepted has fallen, and the experts in that article attribute this to the Court being down one member. As one expert noted in the article, ``there seem to be a number of `defensive denials,' meaning neither side of the ideologically split court wants to take some cases because of uncertainty about how it will turn out, or whether the court will be able to reach a decision.'' Another harmful effect of this Republican obstruction is that the Court has been contorting itself to avoid 4-4 splits by leaving the key questions of cases undecided. Just yesterday, in two different cases, the Court was unable to make a final decision on the merits. In both cases, the appellate courts are split on the law, and the Supreme Court was unable to live up to its name. One of the cases, Zubik v. Burwell, involved religiously affiliated employers' objections to their employees' health insurance coverage for contraception. The Court had already taken the unusual step of ordering supplemental briefing in the case, seemingly to avoid a 4-4 split. Even with the extra briefing, the Court was still unable to make a decision. Instead, it sent the issue back to the lower courts expressing ``no view on the merits of the cases.'' In the second case, Spokeo v. Robbins, the question at issue was Congress's ability to statutorily create rights that confer standing for plaintiffs to sue when those rights are violated. The case involves important privacy questions about Americans' power to take action when incorrect information is posted about them online. The Court, however, failed to reach the key question at issue. The effect is that the current split among the Circuit Courts of Appeals remains unresolved. As yesterday's New York Times editorial notes, ``Every day that passes without a ninth justice undermines the Supreme Court's ability to function, and leaves millions of Americans waiting for justice or clarity as major legal questions are unresolved.'' In addition to these contortions, the Court has deadlocked in at least three instances on significant legal issues before it. These 4-4 splits have real, practical consequences. As a recent Economist article noted, ``By letting lower-court decisions stand but not requiring other courts to abide by the ruling, the stage is set for odd state-by-state or district-by-district distinctions when it comes to the meaning of laws or the constitution.'' I ask unanimous consent that all three articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Republicans' refusal to do their jobs and consider Chief Judge Garland's nomination diminishes the role of the Supreme Court. In nominating Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, President Obama has picked an eminently qualified judge who has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. This is an individual who has received praise across the political spectrum. But instead of delving into his lengthy public service record for themselves, Republicans have decided to outsource their jobs to outside interest groups who have spent millions of dollars to smear Chief Judge Garland. And worse, they continue to refuse to allow Chief Judge Garland a chance to respond at a public hearing. As long as they stick to this unprincipled position, Republicans will continue to undermine the Court's ability to serve its role under our Constitution as the final arbiter of our Nation's laws. Republicans should reverse course and treat the Court as the independent and coequal branch of government that it is. So today, let us not only celebrate the Court's historic decision in Brown, but also resolve to return this venerated institution to full strength. It begins with giving Chief Judge Garland a fair public hearing and a vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 5 weeks since the Senate last confirmed a judicial nominee. In that time, judicial vacancies have continued to increase. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has repeatedly objected to unanimous consent motions made to overcome the obstruction of 20 judicial nominees. These are nominees who were voted out unanimously by committee and are awaiting a confirmation vote. The majority leader claims that President Obama's nominees have been treated fairly, but anyone paying attention to the Senate over the past 7 years knows that is not the case. It has been almost 2 months since Chief Judge Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Garland is widely respected, and prior to his nomination, he had repeatedly received praise from the very Republicans who now refuse to allow him to appear for a confirmation hearing. These same Republicans refuse to do their jobs as Senators while outside groups pour millions of dollars into television ads that seek to discredit Chief Judge Garland's record. Before there was even a Supreme Court nominee, one Republican aide promised conservatives were ``going to light this person up.'' Sadly, it appears they are making good on their threat while simultaneously refusing to allow him a public hearing where he could respond. Meanwhile, lower court nominees have stalled. Paula Xinis, whom we will vote on today, was nominated more than a year ago to fill an emergency vacancy--not just a regular vacancy but an emergency vacancy in Maryland. Since 2011, she has practiced as a criminal defense attorney at a law firm. Prior to that, she served in the Federal Public Defender's Office for the District of Maryland for 13 years, from 1998 to 2011. Ms. Xinis has extensive trial experience, representing hundreds of clients as a public defender and trying 16 cases to completion over the course of her career. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Xinis ``well qualified'' to serve in the district court. They gave Paula Xinis their highest rating. She is strongly supported by both Senators from Maryland, and her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote 8 months ago. All the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee approved her nomination from the Committee by unanimous voice vote. Senator Sessions came to the floor today to oppose Ms. Xinis's nomination based on her experience as an examiner of complaints against police officers in the District of Columbia. From 1995 to 2011, Ms. Xinis served as a complaint examiner in six cases where she made determinations on complaints brought against Metropolitan Police Department officers. At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Sessions questioned Ms. Xinis about her experience and expressed concern that, in the six cases Ms. Xinis served as a complaint examiner, she sustained rulings against police officers in all of them. Senator Sessions questions Ms. Xinis's fairness to police officers based on her determinations in these six cases. However, as Senator Sessions said on the floor today, he does not question her personal qualifications or her integrity to be a Federal judge. And he also did not question her testimony before the Judiciary Committee in which she committed to being a fair and impartial judge, should she be confirmed. Furthermore, Ms. Xinis's record as a complaint examiner shows that each one of her six determinations was sustained by the chief of police; none of them was overturned. Her decisions could have been appealed and overturned if they were incorrect, but they were not. Paula Xinis has earned the express support of law enforcement and has defended police officers as an attorney on a number of occasions. For instance, in one case, she provided legal counsel to a Baltimore police officer unfairly accused of criminal wrongdoing. That officer wrote a letter of support for Ms. Xinis, where he said: ``Throughout the entire ordeal, I spent countless hours with Paula and her team. They worked diligently seeking the evidence needed to exonerate me. Although it was an extremely dark time for me, she always made me feel confident that she `had my back' and that she was dedicated to seeing that I was vindicated. Thankfully, as a result of her tireless efforts on my behalf, all of the charges brought against me were dismissed earlier this year.'' This does not sound like a person who holds any biases against law enforcement. In addition to this officer, several other members of the law enforcement community have written in support of Ms. Xinis's nomination. After we actually vote on Paula Xinis's nomination today, there will still be 19 judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar waiting for a confirmation vote. Every single one of these nominees was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. Instead of allowing a vote on these nominees on a regular basis, the Republican leadership objects to the Senate being able to do our jobs. After today's vote, the next in line for consideration is a district court nominee from New Jersey and then a district court nominee from Nebraska. I know the Senators from New Jersey are pushing for a vote on the nominee to serve in their State. I hope the Republican Senators from Nebraska are urging their leadership to schedule the confirmation of Robert Rossiter, who was approved by unanimous voice vote in committee. That vacancy has been pending for over a year and a half. There is no good reason for votes on these nominees to be further delayed. Senator Grassley has indicated that Republicans will shut down the judicial nominations process in July, even though vacancies have risen from 43 to 81 since Republicans took over the majority. They have allowed vacancies to rise dramatically and now want to shut it down even though the judicial nominees pending are not controversial and we have numerous vacancies that need to be filled. This is wrong. Contrast this to the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration, when Democrats were in control. At this same point in the Bush Presidency, Democrats had reduced vacancies to just 46. Because of Republican obstruction, our independent judiciary is struggling to perform its role under the Constitution. The Marshall Project recently interviewed several sitting judges to examine the impact judicial vacancies are having on our courts. Chief Judge Ron Clark of the Eastern District of Texas, which currently has three judicial emergency vacancies, said: ``We're managing the best we can-- but if they don't get us another judge soon, you could start to see some more draconian kinds of delays.'' There is a nominee to this court pending in the Judiciary Committee, but the Texas Senators, who both are members of the committee, have not returned their blue slips to allow that nominee to even receive a hearing. I hope the Texas Senators heed the call of Chief Judge Clark and get moving on their nominee. And I hope the Senate majority allows this body to return to regular order when it comes to processing judicial nominees. We have a constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. The Constitution has not changed, but once President Obama took office, this body's normal practice for treating nominees turned for the worse. Deference to home State Senators was no longer the norm, and procedural delay after procedural delay quickly became the standard practice of the Republican caucus, whether they were in the minority or now in the majority. In a New York Times op-ed a week ago, former Judge Shira Sheindlin of the Southern District of New York warned that the Republicans' obstruction to district court nominees ``undermines public trust in the impartiality and legitimacy of the judiciary.'' I was heartened to hear the majority leader last week make the point that an election year is ``not an excuse not to do our work.'' I could not agree more. That is why in the last 2 years of the George W. Bush administration, when I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees. That is compared to a handful of President Obama's nominees that the Republicans have allowed. We confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees, and we confirmed right up to the time we went out for the elections in September, not in June or July or May. We have also confirmed more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices in Presidential election years, and many in this Senate served at the time. The last one we had, of course, was during President Reagan's final year in office. We did so because we knew the Supreme Court should not be held hostage to election-year politics; yet we are being held hostage to election-year politics because we are not doing our jobs. And the Supreme Court issued a couple more 4-to-4 opinions today. I urge the majority leader to heed his own advice and to schedule a confirmation vote for the pending lower court nominees, and I urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to follow suit by scheduling confirmation hearings for Chief Judge Garland so that we can do our jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Judge Sheindlin's op-ed and the Marshall Project review be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, hopefully this week the Senate will vote on legislation to reauthorize key elements of the Adam Walsh Act. I supported this important law when it was first enacted nearly 10 years ago, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this reauthorization bill. Over the years, I have worked closely with John Walsh and others who have been such tireless advocates on behalf of missing and exploited children. And as a Senator and former prosecutor, but most importantly, as a father and a grandfather, I take seriously my duty to protect the children of Vermont and every community throughout the country. The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act will reauthorize two important programs that assist State and local law enforcement agencies to monitor and apprehend sex offenders. Specifically, this legislation authorizes the Attorney General to continue providing grants to State and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to improve sex offender registry systems. The bill also reauthorizes funding for grants to improve information sharing and verification and supports the work of the U.S. Marshals Service in helping State and local law enforcement to locate and apprehend sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements. Last Congress, I was proud to help lead the fight to reauthorize the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, which has served for more than three decades as a national clearinghouse on issues related to missing and exploited children. I know that the center works closely with the marshals and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act will help further our support for these collaborative efforts. The bill also includes an important set of provisions authored by Senator Shaheen to protect the rights of sexual assault survivors. I want to thank and applaud Senator Shaheen for her hard work and leadership on the Sexual Assault Survivors Rights Act. As an original cosponsor of her bill, I supported the inclusion of her important measure as part of this bill. I encourage all Senators to support this bill. I hope that the House will take it up and promptly pass it so that it can be signed into law by the President. There is no need to delay any longer our support for the Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies that work tirelessly to protect the children of our community. But once this bill becomes law, our job does not end there. It is not sufficient to just pay lip service to this issue and allow Congress to pat itself on the back for passing an authorization bill. Just as we have seen with our efforts to combat the opioid abuse epidemic, a bill that authorizes programs is important and worthy of support, but ultimately an empty promise if it is not backed up with the actual Federal resources that Congress authorizes. I will keep fighting to ensure that Congress puts its money where its mouth is and provides the funding that is necessary to support these important efforts. I will continue fighting to improve our laws so that we protect the most vulnerable in all of our communities.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every year in May we commemorate National Police Week, a time to reflect upon the sacrifices made by the men and women who serve in law enforcement. In particular we honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and died in the line of duty. Our law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect and serve our communities in Vermont and across the country. This year I am proud to say that Congress has come together to deliver more than just rhetoric in honor of this service. This year we are providing something much more important--tangible, lifesaving protection for hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives joined the Senate and passed my bipartisan reauthorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I originally worked with former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell to establish the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program in the wake of the Carl Drega shootings on the Vermont-New Hampshire border. While the Federal officers engaged in a shootout with Drega were equipped with body armor, many of their State law enforcement counterparts were not, which resulted in the death of two State troopers. Now, nearly 20 years later, this program has provided more than 1.2 million protective vests to more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies around the country, including more than 4,400 vests for Vermont officers; yet the program's charter expired in 2012, and I have been working to reauthorize it ever since. The Senate passed the bipartisan measure coauthored by Senator Lindsey Graham last year. I am proud that the House has now done the same, and the legislation is headed to the President's desk for signature. This program saves lives and proves that Congress can work together to protect those who protect us. While the Bulletproof Vest Partnership will continue to protect officers, we must never forget the more than 20,000 fallen officers enshrined on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. These walls stand as a testament to the dedication and commitment of our brave law enforcement officers. Officers like Sergeant Gary A. Gaboury, a patrol commander in Shaftsbury and member of the State police dive team, who tragically died 24 years ago today, on May 12, 1992, as he was attempting to recover a drowning victim. No matter how old these wounds are, our communities must not forget the sacrifice of Sergeant Gaboury and others in uniform. Tomorrow the names of 252 fallen officers will be added to the walls of the memorial. Among those who will be added to the wall is Vermont State Trooper Kyle Young, who tragically died last September. Trooper Young, who suffered heat stroke during a training exercise, was the first line-of-duty death in Vermont in 12 years. Like so many of his fallen colleagues, Trooper Young died while working to be a better public servant. He hoped to be promoted to the agency's tactical team, and he died showing the same grit and determination that he showed throughout his life, always trying to achieve the next goal. Trooper Young was only 28 years old and the father of two young girls. He was an outstanding high school athlete who went on to serve in the U.S. Air Force, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. His colleagues described him as an active trooper who, with less than 2 years on the job, quickly found his calling. The tragedy of Trooper Young's death will not be forgotten, nor will the lives of 23 other Vermont law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty. Vermont is fortunate to be served by so many professional and dedicated public servants in law enforcement. That is why I have worked so long to provide law enforcement officers with what they need to keep both themselves and their communities safe. It is my hope that the reauthorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program will do just that--and will help keep names off that wall.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have often likened the counsel that Senators receive from their staff to the confidential advice a lawyer provides to a client. That is why it is so rare that, over the last 40 or so years, Ross Baker, a Distinguished professor at Rutgers University, has taken several sabbaticals to research the inner workings of Capitol Hill. Most recently, as a scholar in residence in Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's office, Professor Baker has been given the unusual access to the inner workings of one of the Senate's leading offices. The result? Professor Baker is considered the go-to academic expert on the Senate, one of the preeminent scholars of congressional history, the author of six books about Congress and government, and an insightful resource for the news media about the often inscrutable goings-on in Congress. I came to know Professor Baker when he joined my staff as an adviser in 2000, when he returned to Capitol Hill to gain a better understanding of Senate seniority. When he returned to my staff in 2004, during a period of fierce debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the direction of our courts and our national security policy, Professor Baker saw firsthand how lawmakers, including myself, balance meaningful, large-scale policy debates with the day-to-day responsibility of representing and advocating for our constituents. It goes without saying that my relationship with Professor Baker was a two-way street. It was not uncommon for me to respond to his questions with some of my own. In 2008, Ross Baker joined then-Majority Leader Reid's staff at a pivotal time in both Congress and in the political arena. Long and diverse primary campaigns, coupled with the winding down of the tumultuous Bush administration, provided Professor Baker with even more fodder for his courses at Rutgers. As he concludes his final stint with Senator Reid's office, one can only wonder how today's political dialogue both on the campaign trail and on the floor of the Senate will inform Professor Baker's American Government course when he resumes teaching this fall. Vermonters have entrusted me to represent them in Washington several times. Like Professor Baker, I have spent time studying what works, and what doesn't. His insights are as important to the chronicle of Senate history as they are to the students he teaches today. I ask unanimous consent that a May 5 article in the Washington Post entitled ``History Professor Landed a Privileged Perch to See How Harry Reid Works'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. By rejecting the poison pill riders that sidelined the appropriations process for much of last year, the Senate has taken a responsible step forward to meet the needs of the American people, keeping our government functioning, and investing in critical programs to support energy research, production, and management. I am particularly pleased that the Senate rejected efforts to eliminate Federal support for key regional commissions, including the Northern Border Regional Commission. The Northern Border Regional Commission, like others across the country, is a joint Federal-State economic development effort that includes some of the most severely and persistently economically distressed and underdeveloped counties in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and northern New York. Every Federal dollar invested through the commission leverages on average $2.6 in matching funds in return for vital economic development and infrastructure projects. The $10 million this energy and water bill provides for the NBRC will help create new jobs and retain thousands more. This bill also makes important investments in the Army Corps of Engineers, in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, in scientific research, for weatherization programs, and in environmental cleanup. I want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for working with me, too, on important report language to encourage the Department of Energy to facilitate the sharing of information and resources among host communities with nuclear power plants that face decommissioning. Communities impacted by the decommissioning of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant would benefit greatly from the experiences and best practices of other host communities in which plants have recently been decommissioned. I look forward to working with the Department of Energy to further advance these goals. The bill also includes report language that directs the Department of Energy to fund activities that support the development and testing of new low-emission, highly efficient wood stoves, an important heat source for many Vermont homes because of the affordable and renewable thermal energy they provide. Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have worked in a bipartisan way to produce a responsible, rider-free appropriations bill, and I hope this process will serve as a model for the Senate as we continue the appropriations process this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, each year, the Small Business Administration sets aside the first week of May to acknowledge small businesses that are doing extraordinary work and recognizes them during Small Business Week. In March, the SBA announced the slate of 2016 Vermont small business award winners, which included three tremendous businesses from Lamoille County. The award winners included the Small Business Person of the Year, Tom Stearns of High Mowing Seeds; Woman- Owned Business of the Year, Debbie Burritt of Sweet Crunch Bakeshop & Catering; and Young Entrepreneur of the Year, Caleb Magoon, of Power Play Sports. In Vermont, we place a high value on small businesses. They make up the backbone of our economy and the heart and soul of our communities. I am incredibly proud of the three Lamoille County businesses being recognized both because of their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit, but also because they represent a true cross section of the Vermont economy. Vermonters share an inherent bond with our State's natural resources. Our State prides itself on our strong agricultural history and the renaissance we are seeing in diversified agriculture and value added food production. For many farmers, this connection starts with their soil and the seeds they plant in the ground. What started as a hobby for Tom Stearns 20 years ago has grown into a dynamic business that is one of the top organic seed companies in the country, now supplying those farmers and home gardeners across the country with the seeds that become the food we feed our families. Part of what sets Vermont businesses apart is their ability to innovate and help define or create new markets. High Mowing has done just this in the seed market--by ensuring that all of their 700 varieties of seeds are both organic and GMO-free--and are among the gold standard in the market. Now they are branching out to experiment with new varieties that will bring new specialty vegetables, herbs, and flowers to the market. When imagining a startup business, it is common to think of someone working out of their garage. Debbie Burritt of Sweet Crunch Bakeshop & Catering is precisely one of those entrepreneurs. Debbie founded her business in 2001 in her home garage, and since then, her products have received great acclaim and attention. Sweet Crunch baked goods are made from scratch, with no preservatives. It comes as no surprise to this Vermonter that their maple cookies are one of their best selling products. In fact, Sweet Crunch's maple cookies were featured on the Food Network, and Sweet Crunch products can be found in locations across New England and, in fact, the country. I will take a moment of personal pride to note that Debbie's delicious products will be a featured part of the annual Taste of Vermont celebration happening in Washington in a few weeks. The mountains and valleys that played such a significant role in determining the settlement of Vermont continue to be a significant force in the lives of Vermonters. These resources attract skiers, riders, bikers, paddlers, and many other adventurers to our State both to live and to visit. Naturally all of these outdoor enthusiasts need some place to be outfitted. Power Play Sports has been a staple of the local sporting goods scene for more than 20 years, but was recently purchased by Caleb Magoon. Caleb first worked at Power Play as a teenager and returned to manage the store after living in Boston for a number of years. He has demonstrated a great entrepreneurial vision, consolidating his other business under one roof and opening a new store in Waterbury, VT. This type of passion and growth are qualities we want to encourage in Vermont and deserve recognition. I want to congratulate these three businesses and all the Vermont businesses who were recognized by the SBA for a job well done. I look forward to their future successes. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the following article written by Kayla Friedrich of the Stowe Reporter recognizing Tom, Debbie, and Caleb for their awards be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, you don't have to look too far in Vermont to find any number of unique businesses. One such business is Border Air Ltd., led by its owner Cliff Coy. Cliff is the airport manager and unofficial ``aviation ambassador'' at the Franklin County State Airport in Swanton, VT. He also owns and runs Border Air Ltd., a maintenance and restoration company. He purchased Border Air Ltd. in 2007 from his father, George, who founded the company in 1989. Border Air specializes in restoring Soviet-era aircraft and is one of only five companies in the country with the qualifications to sell, maintain, and inspect them. In addition to providing many services for the aviation enthusiasts who call Franklin County home, Border Air imports and exports planes to and from former Soviet nations, a practice that began after the senior Mr. Coy took a trip to Lithuania in 1989. George Coy heard of an Antonov An-2, the largest single-engine biplane ever built, which had just been restored and was listed for sale. In spite of a major malfunction while crossing the Black Sea with the An-2, the Coys were hooked on the idea of importing similar aircraft and selling them to American pilots. Since then, over 300 planes have passed through Border Air's hangars, some purchased by customers as far as Chicago. Through their work with pilots and aviation enthusiasts across the world, the Coy family has brought business to Swanton and helps to keep citizens safe by inspecting planes once a year to ensure they are up to Federal Aviation Administration safety codes. Though safety is most important, Cliff Coy also aims to inspire a love of flying in children and adults across the country by bringing students from nearby Missiquoi Valley Union High School to the airport to watch air show practices or speaking with anyone interested in planes from flying to skydiving. The Coys represent an entrepreneurial spirit that is at the heart of Vermont. In Cliff Coy, we see a true commitment to and leadership with the community. I ask unanimous consent that the April 14, 2016, article from Seven Days entitled ``Border Air in Swanton Keeps Imported Planes Alive,'' which chronicles the Coys' history with Border Air Ltd., be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, two days ago, we recognized World IP Day, celebrating the profound contributions that artists and inventors make to our culture and beyond. The theme of this year's World IP Day was Digital Creativity: Culture Reimagined, and events around the world focused on how to promote and protect creative efforts in the digital age. As we look forward to new and innovative digital creations we must also be vigilant in preserving the past. We must ensure that the films and recordings that played vital roles in shaping and recording the American experience are preserved for future generations. Those works, created by previous generations, tell us who we are, and who we were, as a society. To help ensure that these records of our history, our dreams, and our aspirations can be viewed and appreciated by future generations, I am joining with Senator Grassley to introduce legislation reauthorizing the Library of Congress sound recording and film preservation programs. Congress has long recognized the importance of cultural preservation, creating the National Film Preservation Program in 1988 and the National Sound Recording Preservation Program in 2000 within the Library of Congress. Both programs help preserve historical and cultural artifacts that would otherwise disappear or be destroyed through the passage of time. The Library of Congress uses the programs to advance important preservation efforts including recognizing films and sound recordings on the National Film and National Recording Registries. The programs also created the federally chartered National Film and National Recording Preservation Foundations. The foundations provide grants to a wide array of educational and non-profit organizations to preserve films and sound recordings. To date, the National Film Preservation Foundation has given grants to organizations in all 50 States, including to Hildene, the Lincoln Family Home in Manchester, Vermont, which used the money to preserve home movies of Robert Todd Lincoln's descendants from the 1920s to the 1940s. Well over 2000 films, many of which can now be viewed online, have been preserved through the Foundation's grants. Among the preserved films is the earliest feature film shot in Vermont, ``A Vermont Romance'' from 1916. By reauthorizing these important programs through 2027, this legislation will allow the Library of Congress and the Foundations to continue their important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve these works and make them available for study and research. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support the bill be printed in the Record.