Patrick Leahy

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.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I had the honor of speaking at an event hosted by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate on this body's role in considering Supreme Court nominees. The institute is a wonderful organization ``dedicated to educating the public about the important role of the Senate in our government.'' My friend Ted Kennedy loved the Senate and worked hard every day here to improve the lives of the people of Massachusetts and the people of America. I thank Vicki Kennedy for all of her efforts to build the institute. She has also continued the Kennedy legacy by working to advance medical research and health care for all Americans. I was honored by her invitation to speak at the event. The institute's event was held on the important and timely issue of the Senate's constitutional role in providing advice and consent on nominees to the Supreme Court. As Senator Kennedy once said, ``Few responsibilities we have as Senators are more important than our responsibility to advise and consent to the nominations by the President to the Supreme Court.'' Ted understood the momentous nature of Supreme Court nominations, as well as the Senate's undeniable and irreplaceable constitutional role in providing advice and consent on the President's nominees. And the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Senator Kennedy and I served together for years, plays a singularly important role in considering nominees to serve in our Federal judiciary. But that critical role has been abdicated by the Senate Republicans' unprecedented decision to deny any process to Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court. In the last 100 years since public confirmation hearings began in the Judiciary Committee for Supreme Court nominees, the Senate has never denied a nominee a hearing and a vote. No nominee has been treated the way Senate Republicans are treating Chief Judge Garland. Even when a majority of the Judiciary Committee did not support a nominee, the committee still reported out the nomination for a vote on the Senate floor. This allowed all Senators to exercise their duty to consider the nominee. In fact, when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 during the Bush administration, I and Senator Hatch--who was then the ranking member--memorialized how the committee would continue in this tradition to consider President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees. In a letter to all Senators, Senator Hatch and I wrote, ``The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee.'' Senator Hatch and I agreed to that. And then-Majority Leader Trent Lott agreed, too, saying this back in 2001: ``the Senate has a long record allowing the Supreme Court nominees of the President to be given a vote on the floor of the Senate.'' We all agreed to this because that is what we in the Senate have done for a century, in an open and transparent manner, allowing the American people to see us doing our work. This is exactly what the Judiciary Committee should be doing this very day. It has now been 42 days since Chief Judge Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court. If we follow the average confirmation schedule for Supreme Court nominees over the last 40 years, the Judiciary Committee should be convening a hearing today on Chief Judge Garland's nomination. The late Justice Scalia, whom Chief Judge Garland would replace on the Court, received a hearing 42 days after his nomination. And Democrats were in charge when the Senate last voted on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988. Justice Kennedy received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee just 14 days after President Reagan nominated him. Had he been nominated at the same time as Chief Judge Garland, his hearings would already have been completed. Last month, the Kennedy Institute released a national poll that showed just 36 percent of Americans know that the Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees. Our response as Senators to this unfortunate fact should not be to deny Chief Judge Merrick Garland a public hearing and a vote, breaking 100 years of Senate tradition and failing to do our jobs as Senators. Instead, our response should be to engage with the American people and to show them through our actions that the Senate can hold up its part of the constitutional framework. And although many Americans may not be able to tell you that the Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees, a solid majority of the American public does know--by a 2-to-1 margin--that Chief Judge Garland deserves to have a hearing. That strong majority of the public is telling us that the Senate should show up for work and carry out its constitutional duty by holding a hearing for Chief Judge Garland. We are hearing that call from so many around the country, including historians, faith groups, civil rights organizations, and legal leaders. In an op-ed yesterday, the president of the Vermont Bar Association, Jennifer Emens-Butler, and others, including a former president of the American Bar Association, made clear that Republicans' obstruction of Chief Judge Garland's nomination undermines the rule of law. They wrote: ``As leaders in the legal profession, we are committed to protecting the rule of law. Thus, we cannot remain silent as the Senate refuses to consider Garland. This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in American history and undermines the rule of law, the very foundation on which this great nation was built.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this op-ed be printed in the Record following my remarks. Some Republican Senators have claimed that their unprecedented obstruction against Chief Judge Garland is based on ``principle, not the person.'' There is no principle in refusing to confirm Supreme Court nominees in election years, as the Senate has done over a dozen times, most recently for President Reagan's last nominee to the Court. Furthermore, we have seen Republican Senators and outside interest groups attack Chief Judge Garland's judicial record, but then refuse to allow him the chance to respond at a public hearing. This is not principled, it is not fair, and it is not right. To deny Chief Judge Garland a public hearing and a vote would be truly historic--but that is not the kind of history the Senate should be proud of. Over the more than 40 years I have served in the Senate, I recall times when the consideration of Supreme Court nominees was controversial. But in every one of those instances, the nominee received a public hearing and a vote. We did not avoid doing our jobs simply because it was hard. We must remember why we are here in the United States Senate. We are all here to serve the American people by carrying out our sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution. Protection of our enduring constitutional system requires that we hold our constitutional duties as Senators above the partisan politics of the now. I hope that Republicans will soon reverse course and put aside their obstruction to move forward on Chief Judge Garland's nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be part of the bicameral and bipartisan introduction for the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016. There has been no stronger advocate on this bill than my friend, John Lewis, and I am proud to stand with him on this effort. In 2008, we passed this bill to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. The bill expires in fiscal year 2017, but it is important that we reauthorize the bill prior to its expiration so that the Department of Justice can continue its work on these unsolved cases, uninterrupted. More than 60 years ago, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American teenager, was brutally murdered, but no one was ever punished for it. His death was a pivotal--and tragic--moment in the Civil Rights era, and it continues to serve as a reminder that too many families suffer from the unsolved murders of their loved ones during the civil rights era without receiving justice. The way to best serve these families is to provide our Federal Government with the tools it needs to investigate these unsolved crimes, and to hopefully, bring some sense of closure for these families. The bill we are introducing today does just that. Since the bill's passage in 2008, the Justice Department and others have been assisting families in their quest for justice in resolving these unsolved murders. Specifically, the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project of Northeastern University and the Cold Case Justice Initiative at the Syracuse University College of Law have both served as invaluable resources and guides for these families. I thank them for their work on these cases, as well as their input in improving this bill. Besides reauthorizing the bill, we have made some changes to address the issues that the families and the organizations have raised. This bill will improve coordination between the various law enforcement branches and the organizations involved; increase transparency and accountability; and continue to resolve these cases without concern of the legislation sunsetting. I thank Congressman Lewis for his tireless work on behalf of the families of these victims of unsolved murders from the civil rights era. I also thank Senator McCaskill of Missouri, Senator Burr of North Carolina, and Senator Blunt of Missouri, who have joined us in introducing this bipartisan bill. I hope that Senators Burr and Blunt can convince the Republican Chairman to move this bill through the Judiciary Committee and Republican Leadership to give this bill a vote on the floor. The road to justice can be long and winding, but we must continue to do our part to help these families obtain justice and closure for their losses.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be part of the bicameral and bipartisan introduction for the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016. There has been no stronger advocate on this bill than my friend, John Lewis, and I am proud to stand with him on this effort. In 2008, we passed this bill to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. The bill expires in fiscal year 2017, but it is important that we reauthorize the bill prior to its expiration so that the Department of Justice can continue its work on these unsolved cases, uninterrupted. More than 60 years ago, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American teenager, was brutally murdered, but no one was ever punished for it. His death was a pivotal--and tragic--moment in the Civil Rights era, and it continues to serve as a reminder that too many families suffer from the unsolved murders of their loved ones during the civil rights era without receiving justice. The way to best serve these families is to provide our Federal Government with the tools it needs to investigate these unsolved crimes, and to hopefully, bring some sense of closure for these families. The bill we are introducing today does just that. Since the bill's passage in 2008, the Justice Department and others have been assisting families in their quest for justice in resolving these unsolved murders. Specifically, the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project of Northeastern University and the Cold Case Justice Initiative at the Syracuse University College of Law have both served as invaluable resources and guides for these families. I thank them for their work on these cases, as well as their input in improving this bill. Besides reauthorizing the bill, we have made some changes to address the issues that the families and the organizations have raised. This bill will improve coordination between the various law enforcement branches and the organizations involved; increase transparency and accountability; and continue to resolve these cases without concern of the legislation sunsetting. I thank Congressman Lewis for his tireless work on behalf of the families of these victims of unsolved murders from the civil rights era. I also thank Senator McCaskill of Missouri, Senator Burr of North Carolina, and Senator Blunt of Missouri, who have joined us in introducing this bipartisan bill. I hope that Senators Burr and Blunt can convince the Republican Chairman to move this bill through the Judiciary Committee and Republican Leadership to give this bill a vote on the floor. The road to justice can be long and winding, but we must continue to do our part to help these families obtain justice and closure for their losses.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after decades of committed service to the important cause of providing public housing for those in need, Paul Dettman is retiring this month as executive director of the Burlington Housing Authority. Throughout Paul's career, he has worked tirelessly in the field of public service. Public housing has not been a fashionable cause for many years, and our communities have certainly seen the effects of this sometimes forgotten priority. Paul Dettman was never deterred by these attitudes, however, and has been dedicated to finding creative solutions to provide for our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. Paul's leadership has resulted in a series of public-private partnerships and innovative initiatives have helped revitalize communities across the Green Mountain State. Before joining the Burlington Housing Authority as its executive director in November 1995, Paul served for many years with the Vermont State Housing Authority. It was here that Paul created the State's first lead hazard reduction program, which now stands as a model for providing families of all incomes with safe housing. Since the beginning of Paul's tenure at Burlington Housing Authority 20 years ago, Vermont's oldest and largest municipally based housing authority, the organization has grown vastly in size and scope. The Burlington Housing Authority has taken on new development projects, improved homebuyer education, and negotiated critical agreements to prevent homelessness in recent years. Under Paul's direction, the Burlington Housing Authority has upheld a strong mission to support all residents, including refugees, those in transition, or in need of long- term supportive services. Paul's commitment also resulted in a critical partnership with another local organization, Women Helping Battered Women, to create Sophie's Place. Together, these two organizations devised a plan to provide victims of domestic violence easier access to public housing subsidies so that they could move directly from violent homes into safe transitional housing. This solution simultaneously eased suffering, streamlined services, and saved money. This program now functions as a key component of the local economic justice and housing plans and serves as a model for valuable partnerships in my home State. This program is only one of many that I could provide as reference to Paul's great work in Burlington and beyond. Like his many colleagues and friends, I know that the Burlington Housing Authority and the greater housing community will miss Paul's expertise, spirit, and compassion. Marcelle and I extend our best wishes as Paul begins his retirement after a long and distinguished career. I surely hope that Paul will take time to enjoy one of his greatest hobbies in the years ahead--sugarmaking among the sweet sugarbush. Paul Dettman's standard of distinction should be an inspiration to others, just as it has been to the city of Burlington and the State of Vermont. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Friday marked the 46th annual Earth Day, and we cannot ignore that we are at a crossroads in time. Human- caused climate change is accelerating with each passing year and is now taking a severe toll on our planet. We see it in our scorched farmlands and burnt forests in the West and in the flood ravaged river valleys and superstorm battered coastlines in the East. Climate change is not a hoax, and we must act now to protect our future and our future generations. Earth Day is an opportunity to recognize that climate change is not only the greatest threat to our environment today, but it also poses a threat to public health and to our national and economic security. In coming years, the economy of Vermont, the United States, and every country on Earth will be altered. We must guide that economic transformation to protect future generations. We are really just beginning to grapple with the serious economic consequences of climate change across the country. In Vermont, we saw the warmest winter on record this year, with mean temperatures 5 to 10 degrees above normal and snowfall several feet below normal. On Christmas Eve, the mercury hit 68 degrees in the State capital of Montpelier, beating the previous record by 17 degrees. The abnormally high temperatures and lack of snow hurt our ski and tourism industries. Many ski areas saw business down 20 percent, and some saw a drop of as much as 40 percent. This does not just impact the ski areas and the mountains, but also our restaurants, local hotels, contractors, and other businesses that are driven by the ski industry. Climate change could also impact Vermont's maple industry, which contributes more than $300 million in sales to Vermont's economy every year. While 2016 has been a successful year for producing maple syrup, if temperatures continue to rise each year, in the short term we could face reduced sap quality and even a decrease in the amount of sap produced. I am also very concerned that, in the long term, our sugar maple stands could be decimated by invasive pests or threatened by drought and forest fires. The agriculture and fisheries sector is highly dependent on specific climate conditions, and maple production will not be the only agricultural industry affected. The Pacific Northwest's winemakers, Alaska's salmon fisheries, the Southeast's peanut producers, and corn growers in the Midwest could all face significant climate-related challenges. The threats posed by climate change are numerous and can be downright frightening. However, Earth Day--and every day--we must remember that, if we can have such a profound negative impact on our environment, we can also have a profound positive affect on the drivers of climate change. If we make climate the top priority around which we organize and refocus economic decisions, we can find solutions to climate risk through creative thinking and innovation. While climate change does represent one of the greatest challenges of our time, we should see it as opportunity to nurture and attract entrepreneurism, rather than dragging our heels or denying that there is a problem. I am proud that time after time Vermonters continue to come together to identify solutions to big problems. I am amazed and energized every day by Vermont innovators who are thinking creatively and already leading nationally and internationally. Vermont businesses, nonprofits, and educational institutions are already tackling big problems and finding solutions to climate change, solutions that are being readied to be deployed in Vermont and exported around the world. Just last week, I had joined leaders from the University of Vermont to announce a National Science Foundation competitive award of $20 million to Vermont EPSCoR, which will support research of the Lake Champlain Basin and its watersheds to find out what has made some parts of the basin resilient in the face of extreme weather events, while other parts fail to recover and rebound. Work like this on Lake Champlain will give Vermont and other regions new tools to help build resiliency in areas that have been vulnerable in the past. Recently, I was pleased to hear that not just one, but two Vermont companies, Green Mountain Power and Vermont Electric Power Company, or VELCO, are finalists for the Edison Electric Institute's prestigious Edison Award this year for their innovation and contribution to the advancement of the electric industry. Green Mountain Power is working to expand renewable energy production in Vermont and is taking their Cow Power model to the next level with a large multifarm bio-digester. Meanwhile, VELCO's Vermont Weather Analytics Center will help to build a more reliable grid as customers, communities, and energy businesses work to prepare for the more severe storms brought by climate change and will also help garner renewable energy's full value and potential in the State. These are cutting-edge projects, generating jobs and knowledge while generating energy. Some people see climate change simply as an environmental issue, but it is about so much more than that. Creating a green energy sector is not just about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is about providing jobs for Americans in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. This is about strengthening national security through energy independence. This is about breaking the stranglehold of oil on the transportation system by developing alternative transportation energy sources. Addressing climate change is also about ensuring that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe on Earth Day and every day for generations to come. We have come together before, across the aisle and across regions, to solve large problems. We must do so again. We owe it to the planet and to future generations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would certainly oppose this amendment. The regional commission is a joint Federal-State economic development effort that includes some of the most economically distressed counties of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York. For decades, these people have faced tough economic circumstances. These programs have helped. More importantly, every Federal dollar invested leverages, on average, 2.6 dollars in matching funds in return. New jobs are created. Thousands of jobs are retained. That is how we should be investing our Federal dollars. We invest in other countries around the world, and we ought to be investing them in our own country and support programs like the Northern Border Regional Commission and not eliminate them. I hope Senators will oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on April 12, 2016, the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations held a hearing on violent extremism and the role of U.S. foreign assistance. We heard testimony from four distinguished witnesses, including my good friend and partner in humanitarian work, Bono, the lead singer of U2 and cofounder of ONE. As I said at the hearing, there are millions of people who may never know Bono by name or have the privilege of listening to his music, but their lives are better because of the profound impact his advocacy has had on the world's efforts to combat poverty. At the hearing, Bono testified about what he called the three extremes: extreme ideology, extreme poverty, and extreme climate. His testimony was powerful. It complemented the opinion piece he wrote that was published in the New York Times on the morning of the hearing in which he highlighted the importance of investing in international development in a way that empowers local populations, including refugees and other displaced persons. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of Bono's article entitled ``Time to Think Bigger About the Refugee Crisis.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are going to remember the victims and families whose lives were forever changed by the bombing in Oklahoma City 21 years ago. This homegrown terrorist attack--this bombing shook our Nation to its core. In fact, it remains the worst act of homegrown terrorism our Nation has endured. The destruction and the loss of life were overwhelming. This photograph I have never forgotten. The firefighter is carrying the limp and bloodied body of a toddler from the wreckage. Those of us who are parents and grandparents know the joy we have had in caring for children this age. You can only imagine the sadness of that firefighter. It symbolized the horror of the attack: 168 innocent lives perished that day; 19 of them were children. The impact, of course, and the loss in the Oklahoma City community was enormous. Nearly everyone knew someone who had lost a friend or family member. The city's emergency services and their victims support resources were quickly overwhelmed. As the days went by and the needs mounted, it became clear that the existing State and Federal resources were simply insufficient to respond to such a massive attack. So to respond to the victims' needs, I proposed, and Congress passed, the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1995. Among important matters, the legislation I wrote created an emergency reserve as part of the Crime Victims Fund to serve as an emergency resource in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass violence. Even though every one of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, prayed there would never be such another act, we had, in my legislation, an emergency reserve, because without such a fund, State victim compensation and assistance programs are quickly overwhelmed. This new fund was critical to ensuring that additional resources got to the field quickly. Over the last two decades, this fund has been instrumental in allowing the Federal government to immediately respond to the victims of other unspeakable acts of mass violence, including the 9/11 terrorist attack and more recently, the domestic terror attack in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Last month I met with the former Federal prosecutor who managed the investigation and the prosecutions of the Oklahoma City bombers. We talked about the prosecution. That former prosecutor was Chief Judge Merrick Garland. He was nominated to the Supreme Court last month. But before he was a judge and a nominee to serve on the highest Court in the land, he was a prosecutor and a senior official at the Justice Department. Those of us who have had the privilege of being prosecutors, none of us could ever think of facing what he did. Immediately after hearing the news of the devastation in Oklahoma City, Merrick Garland turned to the Deputy Attorney General. He said, very simply: ``You need to send me there.'' The next day, Merrick Garland became the highest ranking Department of Justice official on the ground in Oklahoma City after the bombing. He helped to oversee every aspect of the criminal investigation and response. Years later, he still considers his work in Oklahoma City the most important in his life. Chief Judge Garland's commitment to fairness during that difficult period and his work with the citizens of Oklahoma City were formative for him. I know from talking with him that it left a lasting impression on him, but it left especially a lasting impression on the people he served. Last year, the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum honored Merrick Garland with a Reflections of Hope Award for his work on behalf of victims. After his nomination to the Supreme Court last month, the Oklahoma museum's Executive Director said: ``We are so proud that Judge Garland, who kept the family members and survivors front and center during his work in Oklahoma City, has been nominated.'' We have also heard from a team of former prosecutors, law enforcement agents, and victims' advocates who worked directly with Chief Judge Garland in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. They have written to the leadership of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee to highlight Chief Judge Garland's work on this terrorism case. They strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court. The law enforcement team writes of Chief Judge Garland: Twenty years ago, the nation could not find a better lawyer to manage the investigation and prosecution of what was then the worse crime ever committed on American soil. Today, our nation could not find a better judge, nor a more honorable man, to join its highest court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter highlighting Chief Judge Garland's work on the Oklahoma City bombing.

Mr. LEAHY. The American people need to know that it is this dedicated public servant who is now being denied a public hearing by Senate Republicans. No nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been treated the way Senate Republicans are treating Chief Judge Garland. Since public confirmation hearings began in 1916, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. I say to my friends the Republicans, you have no good reason for your obstruction of Merrick Garland. Americans by a 2-to-1 margin want Chief Judge Garland to have a public hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Based on more than four decades of that precedent, that hearing should take place in the Judiciary Committee next week. Instead, Senate Republicans continue to ignore the American people. Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University, said: ``It does not matter constitutionally, nor as a matter of tradition, whether a nomination is made in an election year. Numerous nominations have succeeded during election years. Without exaggeration, Senate Republicans have made up a distinction without a relevant constitutional difference.'' Even school children know that Presidents are elected to 4-year terms and they have to carry out their constitutional duties each and every year right up until noon of January 20 of their last year. It is no different for Senators. We can't just sit this year out because an election will be held in November. As Professor Siegel concludes, Senate Republicans ``are harming the court without a justification that passes the laugh test.'' Today, as we remember the victims, their families, and the entire Oklahoma City community, let's also remember the good the Senate has done when we have put aside destructive partisanship and come together to act for the good of the country. This body has done that time and again, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, as it has carried out its constitutional duty to consider nominees to the Supreme Court. I hope the Senate will carry out that duty for a public servant named Merrick Garland who has served this country so well.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after months of debate and piecemeal short- term reauthorizations, the Senate has finally approved a comprehensive reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, that will improve the safety and efficiency of our Nation's airline transportation system. The Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2016 will not only make airline travel safer and more efficient, it will also strengthen our economy by creating jobs and supporting those who rely on the benefits of airline transportation, day to day. From protecting the rights and safety of airline employees, to ensuring the needs of passengers with disabilities are recognized and upheld, this legislation takes necessary steps to improve travel experiences for all Americans. I am especially pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration Act includes a number of policies that will benefit Vermont's airports, including the preservation of the Essential Air Service program, an important source of support for the Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport. The bill also increases Airport Improvement Program funding, which is essential to the expansion and improvements of airports in Vermont and across the country. Also importantly, the bill will not privatize the Air Traffic Control System. As the opportunities and challenges associated with new technology continue to evolve--both in NextGen implementation and use of drones-- it is important that safety remains a top priority. This FAA reauthorization bill takes steps to address the safety and privacy concerns related to the widespread proliferation of unmanned aircraft within our domestic airspace. The legislation adds several provisions to increase safety by adding new technical and operational standards. For example, the bill requires the FAA and government agencies to collaborate with industry stakeholders to develop guidelines and procedures to ensure the safe integration of drones into the national airspace. I was also pleased that the bill addresses certain privacy concerns about the use of drones by requiring the FAA to establish a publicly accessible website containing information about commercial and government drone operations, the type of information those drones will collect, and how that information will be used. While the drone-related provisions in the bill are an improvement from the status quo, I believe that we must do more to ensure that safety and privacy safeguards are improved. In Vermont, our airports are essential to a strong economy. They facilitate both tourism and commerce, and they are a source of economic growth for our communities. I am disappointed that, despite support from 99 other Senators, the objections of just one Senator prevented the passage of an amendment that would further facilitate travel and commerce between the United States and Canada, our largest trading partner. Expanding U.S. preclearance operations in Canada not only improves the travel experience for Americans traveling back and forth between Canada, but encourages neighbors to the north to visit the United States and infuses our economies through tourism and commerce. Importantly, it also furthers our national security. I will be looking for opportunities to advance this legislation moving forward. The Federal Aviation Administration Act represents a strong step forward in keeping the U.S. airspace as the safest and most efficient in the world. I hope that, as the House takes up this important legislation, they will maintain the carefully balanced proposals included in the Senate bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the formal establishment of the Reserve Officer Training Corps, ROTC, at its birthplace, Norwich University in Vermont. Thanks to the vision of Alden Partridge and Norwich University, we now enjoy the benefits of this century-old program that has commissioned more than half a million ensigns and second lieutenants since its inception. Years before many of his peers, Alden Partridge saw the potential of the citizen soldier. He created Norwich University as a place to educate future generations in a variety of academic fields separate from, but also essential to, the military and to the civic participation synonymous with today's Norwich University. Over the years, the value of the ideals promoted at Norwich University have remained clear to me. Today these proven ideals can be found at institutions of higher education through ROTC programs in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Without question, the country benefits from this diversity of experience. The U.S. service academies create high-quality, professional officers, and I am proud to nominate Vermonters to them every year. Our military, however, cannot rely on leadership that comes solely from a handful of institutions, however excellent they are. For 100 years, ROTC has guaranteed an officer corps that better reflects the diversity of America. Few schools can boast a history as long, rich, and relevant as Norwich University. Always forward thinking, in 1974, Norwich became one of the first military colleges in the Nation to admit women, beginning yet another proud chapter in its history. Today the school ranks among the top institutions for education in the realm of cyber security, an essential professional discipline nurtured early on largely because of the forethought of Norwich University personnel. I am confident this trend of success will continue. The faculty and staff at Norwich help produce highly motivated, well- trained graduates who are simply eager to serve. Their role as educators and mentors creates connections that last throughout the military and civilian careers of graduates and, in turn, fosters a powerful alumni connection that brings even more experience and wisdom to the next generation of students. Vermonters take great pride in their educational institutions, and Norwich University is no exception. Students arrive from around the Nation to study in both corps of cadets and traditional capacities. They develop essential academic and professional skills often while simultaneously fulfilling ROTC obligations that prepare them for future military service. Norwich, like the 274 other institutions supporting ROTC programs, demands and develops excellence in its commissioning- track student body. I would like to recognize Norwich University, the birthplace of the ROTC, for its role in initiating a program that has enjoyed a century of success. I am confident that Alden Partridge's dream will continue to be realized at colleges and universities throughout the Nation as future generations of ROTC officers are produced and charged with the task of ensuring our Nation's success.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every year in April, we pause to observe National Crime Victims' Rights Week, and this year marks its 35th anniversary. Since 1981, in communities across the Nation, people have observed this week with candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our commitment to crime victims and their families. Vermonters have always banded together to help crime victims and their families. That is just who we are, and I am proud of that long tradition. It is vitally important that we continue to recognize the needs of these survivors and work together to promote victims' rights and services. One of our most important tools to do so is the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 and the crime victims fund that it created. I strongly supported passage of this critical legislation, which has been the principal means through which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families for more than three decades. It is time to review and renew that law, and I have been working closely with Senator Grassley in that effort. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to assess the crime victims fund and discuss how to ensure that it continues to meet the changing needs of victims. The Justice for All Act is another important law that promotes victims' rights. I am working with Senator Cornyn to reauthorize this vital legislation. Our bill will further strengthen the rights of crime victims; improve the use of forensic evidence, including rape kits, to provide justice as swiftly as possible; and protect the innocent by improving access to post-conviction DNA testing. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act builds on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing. I served proudly as a prosecutor in Vermont for 8 years, and I believe that we must find those responsible for crimes and prosecute them. But we must also ensure that our system does not wrongly convict those who are innocent. DNA testing is often necessary to prove the innocence of individuals in cases where the system got it grievously wrong. ``Innocent until proven guilty'' is a hallmark of our criminal justice system, but when a person who has been found guilty is truly innocent, we cannot stand idly by. We must act to exonerate that person. The Innocence Protection Act passed as part of the original Justice for All Act in 2004, and since that time, at least 26 people have been exonerated through DNA testing funded by the legislation. In North Carolina, for example, a man was released after spending 37 years in prison for a double murder he did not commit. In Virginia, a man was released after spending 27 years in prison for violent rapes he did not commit. And in New Orleans, a man was released after spending 20 years in a State mental health hospital for an abduction and rape he did not commit. We must continue funding this critical post-conviction DNA testing since we know our system does not always get it right. It is an outrage when an innocent person is wrongly punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. As we begin this year's Crime Victims' Rights Week, I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to update and reauthorize both the Victims of Crime Act and the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. Survivors and their families deserve nothing less.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a December 16, 1997, New York Times article entitled ``Asia's Forest Fires, Scant Mercy for Orangutans'' described the widespread illegal logging and slash and burn agriculture that posed an existential threat to the orangutan, one of the world's only four species of great apes. It was after reading that article and speaking to scientists who had devoted their lives to saving the orangutan from extinction that I started a program in the foreign aid budget to help protect their rapidly shrinking habitat. Orangutans live in only two places on Earth, Borneo and Sumatra, and since I first learned of the threats they are facing, the U.S. Agency for International Development has provided millions of dollars to nongovernmental organizations in Indonesia to try to ensure their survival in the wild. Important progress has been made. Back when the program started, it was feared that the orangutan would be extinct in the wild within 15 years if nothing was done. That has not happened, but their survival is far from assured, as an article in the April 6, 2016, edition of the New York Times entitled ``Adapting to Life as Orphans, Fires and Corporate Expansion Threaten Indonesia's Orangutans,'' describes. It reminded me of what had sparked my attention 20 years ago and how much more there is yet to do. Orangutans and humans share 97 percent of the same DNA. They are extraordinarily intelligent animals and physically far stronger than humans, but today, like all species, their survival depends on humans. The Indonesian Government has taken steps to change people's attitudes toward orangutans, so they are recognized as deserving of protection, not as pests to be killed or captured and kept as pets. In many ways, the orangutan is or could be Indonesia's equivalent of China's Giant Pandas which are protected and admired around the world. Among the biggest threat to orangutans today is the palm oil industry, which is responsible for the destruction of huge areas of tropical forest where orangutans live. The fires used to clear the forest for the planting of palm oil trees has caused havoc on the environment and public health, contributing not only to the destruction of species but widespread drought. The New York Times describes this increasingly precarious situation. I want to quote a few passages from that article: ``The blazes destroyed more than 10,000 square miles of forests, blanketing large parts of Southeast Asia in a toxic haze for weeks, sickening hundreds of thousands of people and, according to the World Bank, causing $16 billion in economic losses.'' ``They also killed at least nine orangutans, the endangered apes native to the rain forests of Borneo and Sumatra. More than 100, trapped by the loss of habitat, had to be relocated. Seven orphans, including five infants, were rescued and taken to rehabilitation centers here.'' ``Indonesia has approved palm oil concessions on nearly 15 million acres of peatlands over the last decade; burning peat emits high levels of carbon dioxide and is devilishly hard to extinguish.'' ``Multinational palm oil companies, pulp and paper businesses, the plantations that sell to them, farmers and even day laborers all contribute to the problem.'' ``While it is against Indonesian law to clear plantations by burning, enforcement is lax. The authorities have opened criminal investigations against at least eight companies in connection with last year's fires, but there has yet to be a single high-profile case to get to court.'' ``The government in Jakarta, the capital, has recently banned the draining and clearing of all peatland for agricultural use, and it has ordered provincial governments to adopt better fire suppression methods. But it has not publicly responded to calls for better prevention, such as cracking down on slash-and-burn operations by large palm oil companies.'' It would be an unforgiveable tragedy if any species of great apes were to become extinct in the wild. They are all endangered--gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans. We need to do whatever is necessary to build international support for protecting these animals, and to help countries like Indonesia enforce its laws to stop the destruction of tropical forests on which these and so many other species depend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from Nevada owes me no apologies. I am delighted to hear what he had to say and I agree with him. Mr. President, today we Vermonters and our neighbors, Americans across the country, are going to recognize Equal Pay Day, a day that shines a spotlight on the glaring pay disparity between men and women. The United States is often looked to as a leader in the global landscape, setting the gold standard for others to follow. Unfortunately, our country fails to lead when it comes to pay parity. American women continue to be treated unequally and unfairly in the workplace. On average, women are only paid 79 cents to every $1 paid to men. It is somewhat better in Vermont, but there is still a disparity of 83 cents to a dollar. Over a career, this means a woman is compensated hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars less than a man with no other explanation for the disparity than their gender. This practice is unacceptable, and it runs contrary to American values. The fight for equal pay for equal work has spanned generations and continues to impact nearly every corner of our country. From corporate boardrooms to locally owned small businesses, women have long fought for their right to be treated with the same respect and dignity as their male counterparts. When I think of this fight, I think of Lilly Ledbetter, a person whom I greatly admire and consider a friend. She has changed the lives of millions of Americans with her courage to stand up for equal pay. It has been nearly 9 years since five Justices on the Supreme Court ruled, by just a one-vote majority, that her pay discrimination claim was invalid--not because of the facts. She had a good pay discrimination claim, but the narrow majority said she did not file a suit against her employer within the Federally mandated time period, even though the way the employer ran things, made it so she had no way of knowing she was being discriminated against at that time. I was proud to work with Senator Mikulski and others to overturn this injustice. We wrote and passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This important legislation clarified the statute of limitations for filing an equal pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination. I was proud to stand with President Obama when he signed this into law, the very first law he signed as President. The progress achieved 7 years ago was important, but the fight for equal pay for equal work continues today. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, an important bill to assure equal pay for equal work--a principle that people say they agree with but for too long has failed to be a reality. Today women from all over Vermont will assemble at the Vermont State House. They will highlight the initiative known as Change the Story, which aims to improve the economic status of women in my State. They will note that while in Vermont women fare slightly better than the average around the country, at the current pace, the wage gap will not disappear before the year 2048. That is far too long for anybody to have to wait. I would also point out that in Vermont, women are twice as likely to live in poverty in their senior years, when their savings amount to only one-third of that of their male counterparts. Every year, Marcelle and I present the Vermont Women's Economic Opportunity Conference. For two decades, it has helped support women- owned businesses. It encourages good-paying, nontraditional careers. But as we prepare to mark the 20th anniversary of the Women's Economic Opportunity Conference in June, I would much prefer if we could eliminate the need for such a conference. I look forward to the day when there is no gender wage gap and when career opportunities are available to all women, but until that day comes, Marcelle and I will continue to present that conference. Pay equality has recently received considerable attention at the international level. Why? In large part, due to the leadership of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team. We can all recall the thrill last year when this team of world-class athletes won for a third time soccer's most coveted title, the FIFA World Cup. I remember, and I remember my children and my grandchildren watched that thrilling victory. It was the most widely viewed women's soccer game in our Nation's history. Like so many other Americans, men and women, I took pride in their historic win. But then fans from across the world were shocked to learn that members of the U.S. women's team received only $2 million for winning the 2015 Women's World Cup, while the men's 2014 World Cup champions were awarded $35 million. We were also astonished to learn that our 2015 world champion women's team received $7 million less than the U.S. men's team that lost in an early round of the men's 2014 World Cup. Even though this sports team made enormous amounts of money from the television rights, the women who earned those rights did not. They got paid less than the men who lost. They got paid less for winning than the men who lost. So, as a result of this alarming inequity, I introduced a Senate resolution calling on FIFA to eliminate its discriminatory prize award structure and to award all athletes with equal prizes. It was disappointing that not a single Republican was willing to cosponsor this resolution. When I tried to get it passed to support fairness for our champion women's team, when I tried to get this passed to say that we should treat women fairly--we should treat the women athletes the same as men athletes--Senate Republicans blocked it from going forward. As more Americans learn of this unfairness, I am hopeful that Senators will join me to support this passage and that Republicans will stop blocking it. Senators should not be afraid to be on record supporting equal pay for equal work for all athletes--in fact, equal pay for equal work for all women. Opponents of an equal prize award structure in sports have pointed to revenue as the reason behind this gross disparity. This is unacceptable. Tennis icons such as Billie Jean King and Venus Williams did not accept these arguments; instead, they fought for equal prize awards in the face of overwhelming adversity. Their impressive efforts led to equal prize awards at the U.S. Open Tennis championships and Wimbledon, which now provides all athletes, men and women, with the respect they deserve. So I am proud to stand in support of the U.S. Women's National Team in their fight for equal prize awards from FIFA and for equal treatment from the U.S. Soccer Federation. The disparities that exist in these organizations are outrageous. They should be remedied immediately. They should be arranged so that men and women are treated fairly and equally. While every Democrat has supported that, I hope Republicans will stop blocking it. As we reflect on the important meaning of Equal Pay Day, I would note that it is not just Republicans or Democrats--but all Americans across the country who should continue to join the growing movement to eliminate discrimination from the workplace. Hard-working women--our mothers, our sisters, our wives, our daughters, and our granddaughters--deserve no less. We should pass this resolution recognizing the achievement of the U.S. Women's National Team as the Women's World Cup champions. We should pass Senator Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, which I have proudly cosponsored. We should take these simple and straightforward steps to guarantee pay equity protections against workplace discrimination. The time for equality is now. Let's be honest. Let's stand up and say: Both men and women should be treated equally. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will finally vote on the nomination of Waverly Crenshaw to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee. This vacancy has been open since December 2014, and Mr. Crenshaw was nominated over a year ago, on February 4, 2015. He has the support of his two Republican home State Senators, Senators Alexander and Corker. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote last summer on July 9, 2015. There is no good reason why it has taken 14 months to confirm this nominee. Mr. Crenshaw is currently a partner at the law firm Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, in Nashville. Mr. Crenshaw was the first African- American partner at Waller, and in his nearly three-decade career in private practice, he has tried approximately 50 cases to verdict. Mr. Crenshaw also served for 3 years in the Tennessee attorney general's office as an assistant attorney general. He has the experience and qualifications necessary to serve on the Federal bench, and he should be confirmed. This is our first judicial confirmation vote in 2 months. In the last 2 years of the Bush administration--with a Democratic majority--the Senate confirmed 68 judges. This new Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed only 16 judges to be confirmed since they gained the majority last year. This record of obstruction began last year, when Senate Republicans confirmed the fewest judicial nominees in more than half a century. Senate Republican leadership is failing our Federal judiciary with their obstruction of judicial confirmations. When Senate Republicans took over the majority in January of last year, there were 43 judicial vacancies. Since then, vacancies have dramatically increased more than 75 percent to 79. Furthermore, the number of judicial vacancies deemed to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has nearly tripled under Republican Senate leadership--from 12 when Republicans took over last year to 34 today. After we vote on Mr. Crenshaw's nomination, 19 judicial nominees will remain pending on the Executive Calendar. This includes nominees with home state support from Republican Senators, including Robert Rossiter for the Federal District Court in the District of Nebraska; Edward Stanton for the Federal District Court in the Western District of Tennessee; and Susan Baxter and Marilyn Horan for the Federal District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. We can reduce the empty judgeships in those states if Republican leadership would allow timely votes on the pending judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. All of those nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. There should not be any further delay in confirming them. Last Thursday, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 42 other organizations submitted a letter to Chairman Grassley expressing their dismay with the failure of the Judiciary Committee to do its job to process nominees for our Federal trial and appellate courts, creating a growing backlog of judicial nominations. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this letter at the end of my statement. The American people expect Senators to do their jobs. This is true with judicial nominations to the lower courts, but it is even more crucial for the Supreme Court of the United States because no one can fill in for the vacant seat on our highest Court. In just the last few weeks, the Supreme Court has deadlocked twice, so it was unable to serve its constitutional function. Refusing to consider Chief Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court is not only unfair to him, it is irresponsible and a threat to a functioning democracy. A recent poll shows that nearly 70 percent of Americans--including a majority of Republicans--say that the Senate should hold a hearing for Chief Judge Garland. That is what the American people are saying, but Republicans are refusing to hear them. Instead of listening to their constituents, they are listening to powerful interest groups. Since public confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees began in 1916, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. And based on the Senate's precedent for decades, the Senate Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing for Chief Judge Garland this month. A public hearing would allow Americans to engage in the process of considering the nomination and hear directly from Chief Judge Garland, but Senate Republicans continue to refuse to do their jobs. Instead, Republicans have outsourced their job to political interest groups whose only goal is to raise millions of dollars to launch a smear campaign against the nominee's admirable record of public service. These outside groups are not accountable to the American people. They do not have the American people's interest in mind. They are private, powerful groups whose only goal is to advance their own special interests at any cost. These special interest groups are spending millions of dollars in dark money to run ads distorting Chief Judge Garland's record. At the same time, Republican Senators are planning to deny Chief Judge Garland a chance to defend himself at a public hearing. It is wrong, it is harmful, and it is unfair. Some Senators have claimed that their unprecedented obstruction against Chief Judge Garland is based on ``principle, not the person.'' But it is not principled to attack Chief Judge Garland's sterling career and then refuse to allow him the chance to respond at a public hearing. Rather than following the demands of unaccountable interest groups, Republicans should listen to the American people who want to see real leadership in Washington. Americans want Republicans to do their jobs and consider for themselves the merits of Chief Judge Garland's record through a public hearing and a vote. I am glad that several Republican Senators have agreed to meet with Chief Judge Garland. This is a person who has spent almost three decades in public service and has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history. Those who meet with Chief Judge Garland will see what I have seen: that he has an exceptional legal mind and a deep respect for the Constitution. His commitment to public service is inspiring, from his days at the Justice Department working as a prosecutor on the ground in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing to his nearly two decades as a Federal appellate judge. But simply meeting with Chief Judge Garland is not enough. The Senate must act on his nomination. In the last several weeks, the Supreme Court deadlocked twice and was not able to carry out its constitutional role as the final arbiter of our Nation's laws. Where you live will impact what your rights are. That is unacceptable and contrary to our constitutional system. If Republicans' irresponsible obstruction of Chief Judge Garland does not stop, this will continue at the Supreme Court for two terms. I hope Senate Republicans will listen to the American people, roll up their sleeves, and do their job. We must carry out one of our most important and solemn responsibilities and consider the Supreme Court nomination before us.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an extraordinary Vermonter, Robert Hawkes Gray. Bob, as he is known to family and friends, grew up in Putney where his parents worked at the Putney School. His father, Edward, was in charge of buildings and grounds, and his mother, Mabel, ran the kitchen. Ed's ability to fix anything and Mabel's cooking and way of keeping order are remembered vividly and fondly to this day by thousands of Putney graduates. Bob attended Putney where he learned to ski cross-country thanks to Olympian skier John Caldwell, the father of cross-country skiing in America who taught at the school. Bob went on to run the outdoor work program at Putney and coached cross-country skiing and running. He became an Olympian himself, competing in the 1968 and 1972 winter games, and was inducted into Vermont's Ski and Snowboard Museum Hall of Fame. After skiing, Bob's lifetime passion has been farming. He and his wife, Kim, own and manage Four Corners Farm, one of the most successful vegetable and dairy farms in Vermont. Located on a beautiful hillside that levels off along the Connecticut River in South Newbury, the sprawling acreage of the farm is a model of order and astonishing productivity. Just about anything that will grow in Vermont, either in fields or in greenhouses heated by wood stoves, can be found there in abundance. Everyone knows that farm work is hard by any standard. It means rising before sunrise and long hours of strenuous physical labor that continues into the night. Anyone who visits Four Corners Farm can't help but wonder how they do it all. It is a testament to the benefits of regular physical exercise, as Bob, now 76, looks closer to 60 and has the strength of someone half his age. It wasn't all due to farming though. It is said that, when Jack Dempsey was the world heavyweight champion, Ed Gray's biceps measured the same diameter. Of course, Ed was an accomplished gardener himself. I could go on about Bob's talents as a farmer. A teacher by instinct, anyone who visits the farm may find themselves treated to a lesson in pruning tomato plants, planting and mulching strawberry seedlings, or the peculiar habits of honey bees. Kim, a former alpine ski racer herself, is also a gifted farmer whose stamp on the business can be seen everywhere. Neither could have made Four Corners Farm what it is today without the other. Bob never stopped skiing for fun, but he didn't take up racing again until the 1990s. This past winter he showed that, if you love something enough and give it everything you have got, just about anything is possible. At the World Masters cross-country ski races in Voukatti, Finland, and at the National Masters at Royal Gorge, CA, Bob won a gold medal, two silvers, and a bronze. Some might think that, by the time you get to be 76, you are probably skiing pretty slowly and there isn't that much competition in your age group anyway. Let's just say that at the Masters no one skis slowly--no one skis anything remotely like slowly. These are the best skiers in the world, and to the rest of us mere mortals, there isn't that much difference between them and today's Olympians. A March 31, 2016, article in the Valley News, entitled ``Septuagenarian Gray Skiing His Way to Wins'' tells the story. I congratulate Bob Gray. He exemplifies the very best of Vermont for his inspiring work ethic, his ski racing accomplishments, and the example he has set for future generations of Vermont skiers and farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Maurice Geiger, known by family and friends as Maury, an extraordinary individual who, although a longtime resident of Conway, NH, with his wife, Nancy, is deserving of the title of honorary Vermonter. Maury Geiger's lengthy career began in the U.S. Navy back in the 1950s, from where he went on to Georgetown Law School and jobs at the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice. He later served as a county prosecutor in New Hampshire, founded the Rural Justice Center in Montpelier, VT, where I first got to know him, became a national expert in court administration, and has provided advice and guidance to help reform dysfunctional justice systems in foreign countries for more than two decades. In no country has Maury devoted more passion, time, and energy than Haiti, where justice has long been more of a fantasy than a reality for the majority of the Haitian people. Since the 1990s, Maury has traveled to Haiti scores of times, often paying out of his own pocket. His purpose was simple: to help improve access to justice for thousands of people caught up in a byzantine system in which it is common to be detained in squalid, grossly overcrowded, sweltering prisons rampant with life-threatening diseases, for months and years, without ever seeing a lawyer or judge or being formally charged with any crime. Over the years, often against great odds, Maury has worked to train numerous Haitian prosecutors, judges, and other judicial officials and to institute recordkeeping systems to improve case management and reduce the chance that inmates are forgotten or their case files are lost. Maury is not only among a handful of the most experienced experts in the field of court administration; he is a person of exemplary integrity. He has never had the slightest interest in profiting himself, as his modest lifestyle demonstrates, but rather to do whatever he could to provide help and dignity to those who are the least able to help themselves. He has done so, year after year, with uncommon compassion and commitment, never losing his wry sense of humor, in a country where the political will for justice reform at the highest levels of government has often been weak or lacking altogether. Maury is in Haiti again this week, and I want him to know that the example he has set of selflessness, of caring, commitment to human rights and equal access to justice, and of an unwavering belief in the basic dignity of all people regardless of their station in life, is one that every law student, every lawyer, every prosecutor, every judge, and every prison warden should strive to emulate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Aviation safety, as much as all national security, must be of paramount importance. I am increasingly concerned with reports from across the country that Secure Identification Display Area, SIDA, badges have gone missing, either through loss or theft. These badges, which grant access to secure areas of airports, allow employees to bypass traditional security checkpoints and, in the wrong hands, can pose a considerable security threat. An amendment considered and adopted earlier today by the Senate, Thune amendment No. 3512, is aimed at addressing this problem and would implement additional accountability and oversight methods to ensure that these SIDA badges do not fall into the wrong hands. It would provide for further employer accountability and allow for increased fines and enforcement actions against workers that fail to report the loss or theft of a badge. These are well-intentioned goals and ones that I support. I opposed this amendment, however, because extraneous provisions included in the amendment directly contradict bipartisan efforts in this Congress to reform our criminal justice system, including by reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for people with criminal records. The amendment will require the TSA Administrator to propose increasing the lookback period from 10 years to 15 years for background checks of airport and airline workers who have or are seeking SIDA badges. Under current regulations, there are a number of offenses that disqualify a potential employee, if the individual was convicted of the offense during the 10-year lookback period. The amendment would also require the TSA Administrator to consider adding more offenses to the list of disqualifying crimes. Disqualifying offenses already include a number of low-level offenses, such as felony drug possession. These provisions would exacerbate barriers to reentry. The scope of the changes will still exclude many potential employees and lead to the firing of a number of current employees. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from Transport Workers Union of America, the AFL-CIO, the Association of Flight Attendants, CWA--the Communication Workers of America, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Transportation Trades Department--AFL-CIO, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National Employment Law Project in opposition to this amendment. I am committed to working with Senator Thune to ensure greater accountability for Secure Identification Display Area badges. It must be a priority. I hope that he and others will work with me through the conference of this bill to eliminate these barriers to employment for individuals with certain criminal records.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, the Senate voted on legislation that will provide a valuable tool to protect against trade secret theft. This legislation is supported by businesses from diverse sectors of our economy, including companies large and small. In Vermont, trade secrets protect the specialized knowledge of woodworkers who have made heirloom products for generations, and cutting-edge start-ups that are shaping the future of plastics, software, and green technology. Trade secrets protect the recipes for Vermont craft brews and closely guarded customer lists for our top tourist services. Today's legislation provides an important tool to protect these innovative businesses in Vermont and across the country. The Defend Trade Secrets Act contains a bipartisan provision I offered with Senator Grassley to ensure that employers and other entities cannot bully whistleblowers or other litigants by threatening them with a lawsuit for trade secret theft. The provision protects disclosures made in confidence to law enforcement or an attorney for the purpose of reporting a suspected violation of law and disclosures made in the course of a lawsuit, provided that the disclosure is made under seal. It requires employers to provide clear notice of this protection in any nondisclosure agreements they ask individuals to sign. This commonsense public policy amendment is supported by the Project on Government Oversight and the Government Accountability Project and builds upon valuable scholarly work by Professor Peter Menell. Good, thoughtful work was done in the Senate Judiciary Committee to craft the bill we are voting on today, which builds on earlier versions introduced in prior Congresses. It is a testament to how the Judiciary Committee can and should operate when it functions with regular order. We held a public hearing on the issue of trade secret theft in the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism during the 113th Congress and another hearing in the full committee this past December. Senators suggested improvements to the bill, they debated them, and they voted on the legislation. Unfortunately, the regular order and fair consideration that was given to this legislation is being denied for one of the Senate's most important and solemn responsibilities: considering the Supreme Court nomination pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Americans by a 2- to-1 margin want the Senate to move forward with a full and fair process for Chief Judge Garland. The Senate today is coming together to pass trade secrets legislation, but that does nothing to absolve us from doing our jobs by considering the pending Supreme Court nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on S. Res. 377, a resolution directing Senate legal counsel to bring a civil action to enforce a subpoena of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, against Carl Ferrer, chief executive officer of backpage.com LLC, ``backpage''. I support this resolution in furtherance of PSI's bipartisan investigation into businesses that directly or indirectly facilitate sex trafficking. Backpage officials have publicly acknowledged that their website may have been used by criminals to engage in sex trafficking, including the trafficking of children. Identifying and shutting down the tools that help criminals engage in such illegality is critical to preventing these crimes. We must do all we can to stop these criminals and to support the survivors. That is why I support this resolution and why I have worked tirelessly to enact legislation to prevent human trafficking in the first place and to provide resources for trafficking victims so that they can begin to rebuild their lives. Last year the chairman and ranking member of PSI jointly launched a bipartisan investigation to examine businesses that directly or indirectly facilitate sex trafficking. Backpage is one of the companies that PSI has been investigating, but it is not the only one. PSI aims to learn as much as possible about these businesses so that the Senate can craft appropriate legislative and policy responses to combat sex trafficking and child exploitation. On October 1, 2015, and in accordance with subcommittee rules, PSI voted on a bipartisan basis to issue a subpoena to backpage's CEO, Carl Ferrer. This subpoena was issued only after backpage failed to comply with a subpoena issued earlier in the year and after several backpage employees refused to testify. The subpoena required, among other things, the production of backpage's policies and practices with respect to reviewing advertisements for potential criminal activity, information on how backpage cooperates with law enforcement, data on how many advertisements backpage denies or deletes, and information relating to revenue earned through adult advertisements. To date, backpage has refused to comply with the subpoena. On November 19, 2015, PSI held a hearing about backpage.com. At this hearing, the senior vice president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children testified that 71 percent of reports of suspected child trafficking it receives involve backpage. The hearing also raised significant concerns about backpage's willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. PSI issued a subpoena compelling the testimony of Carl Ferrer at the hearing, but he refused to appear. The refusal of backpage to comply with the subpoena compelled the full Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to vote unanimously in favor of the resolution now before us. The resolution authorizes Senate legal counsel to begin to take action to enforce the subpoena in Federal court. PSI's investigation is exactly the type of oversight the Senate should be conducting. The subject matter is one of utmost importance, and PSI's efforts have been jointly conducted by the chairman and ranking member of PSI since the investigation began. Most importantly, the requested documents are critical to understanding how online sex trafficking is effectuated and to finding ways to stop it. Authorizing Senate legal counsel to enforce a Senate subpoena is a very serious matter that should not be taken lightly. This action should be taken only in the most limited of circumstances and should never be pursued for partisan or political motives. Given the serious nature of this investigation and the unanimous support by all members of the committee and subcommittee throughout the process, I support this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a native of Montpelier and as one who attended the christening of the USS Montpelier, I was so happy to see an article in the Times Argus regarding its return to the United States after a 6-month deployment last month. Steve Martin and Debra Smith have both been involved for years and supported the crew of the USS Montpelier. Marcelle and I had a memorable time at a picnic they held for the crew in Middlesex. As a Vermonter, they both make me proud, and I wanted my fellow Senators to see what they have done. I ask unanimous consent that the Times Argus article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize Don Hooper, a great Vermonter who is soon to retire from the National Wildlife Federation. Don is a great environmental conservationist whose advice I have sought for at least 20 years on issues affecting Vermont, the United States, and indeed the planet. For 17 years, Don has helped lead the National Wildlife Federation, NWF, in Vermont and the region. He helped to bring the peregrine falcon back from the brink of extinction in Vermont and to restore our State's breeding population of bald eagles. Beyond Vermont, he advocated for piping plovers, wolves, Atlantic salmon, and more. Don helped the NWF become one of the first organizations to sound the alarm about the accelerating impacts of climate change and to pull together coalitions of environmental advocates, conservationists, and sportsmen and sportswomen to push for solutions. Don's public service extends beyond his conservation leadership. He worked hard in the mid-1990s as Vermont's Secretary of State to reduce barriers to the ballot box and to make government more open and accessible, priorities both he and I share. Many Vermonters also celebrate Don's 8 years representing the towns of Randolph, Brookfield, and Braintree in Vermont's General Assembly, when Don led efforts to divest pension funds from South African investments, helped to craft significant environmental and planning legislation, and achieved what would be unthinkable in most States--a political redistricting map that was adopted by near consensus. And as is the story with any great Vermonter, Don's foundation has been his family. Since 1974, the Hooper's Brookfield farm, worked by Don, his wife, Allison, and sons, Sam, Jay, and Miles, has been a mainstay of the community. They have sold hay, vegetables, goat's milk, and meat from the farm to friends and neighbors. Don helped found the Montpelier Farmers Market that Marcelle and I visit whenever we are home in the summer. With Allison in the lead and Don doing much heavy lifting and dishwashing, the Hoopers became cheesemakers and founded the Vermont Butter and Cheese Company, which has thrived for 32 years, employs 77 people directly, supports many more Vermont farmers, and has Vermont's specialty cheese industry on the international culinary map. On top of all of this, Don is a volunteer for the fire department and a member of the local Farm Bureau. It is hard to think of a more dedicated member of the community. These are just some of the layers of Don's life in Vermont. He has also done great work as a Peace Corps volunteer in Botswana and in the leadership of national organizations. Don Hooper stands as tall as ever in retirement, and while this might conclude his leadership of the NWF in Vermont, I know it will not be the last we hear and see of this great Vermonter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly a year ago when Muhammadu Buhari became the first Nigerian to defeat a sitting President through the ballot box, I greeted the news with cautious optimism. For the most part, his message was and remains one that encourages greater cooperation between the United States and Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram and chart a brighter course for Africa's most populous nation. Recent attacks by Boko Haram have served as a sobering reminder of the challenges Nigeria continues to face, and I have supported every initiative by the Obama administration to counter this scourge. Through my role as ranking member on the Department of State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I have also supported hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid for Nigeria annually, particularly for public health activities. But words and money only go so far. While President Buhari has taken positive steps to combat corruption and his government has shown more interest than his predecessor in addressing the development challenges in the north, reports of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military continue to undermine the government's reputation and effectiveness. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. And although President Buhari has taken some initial steps to reform the military, far more needs to be done when it comes to accountability for such crimes. I want to highlight an incident which, although tragic, provides an important opportunity for President Buhari to begin to reverse the long history of impunity within Nigeria's security forces. According to credible reports, on December 12, 2015, a convoy that was transporting Nigeria's chief of army staff was unable to bypass a gathering orchestrated by the Islamic Movement of Nigeria in Zaria, and the ensuing clashes resulted in as many as 300 civilians killed and many others detained. According to information I have received, many of the bodies were quickly buried by soldiers without the permission of family members, making it difficult to determine the death toll, but also making it hard for victims' families to know who had been killed and who had been taken into custody. The Kaduna State government subsequently established a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the incident, a positive first step, and it is expected to complete its work sometime this month. Serious questions, however, have been raised about the impartiality of the commission. While I understand that the inquiry is being conducted at the state level, it has national implications. The fact that President Buhari has said little about this situation--noting only that it is ``a military affair''--is worrisome given the potential for wide-ranging implications and the commitments he made during his inaugural speech to ensure discipline for ``human rights violators in the armed forces.'' I hope the Buhari administration fully supports the Kaduna State government judicial commission of inquiry and takes whatever steps are necessary to ensure it fulfills its responsibilities. The risks are great if the commission is deemed not to have been impartial and thorough in its review and if the findings are not publicly released and acted on, as appropriate. At the very least, a significant opportunity will have been missed to demonstrate that the Government of Nigeria values and defends the rule of law, is committed to transparency, and seeks to make real progress on issues of justice and accountability. While this is an issue that Nigeria must tackle, I stand ready to support any assistance the United States can provide to help President Buhari strengthen Nigerian institutions of justice and combat impunity.